Opinion ID: 1946760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defendant's First Motion for New Trial

Text: When he evaluated the first motion for a new trial, the hearing justice (who was also the presiding justice at trial) considered all the evidence presented and assessed whether the jury's verdict was reasonable. The defendant argued that Jane's testimony was insufficient to carry a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the justice denied defendant's motion after he found that Jane had no axe to grind with defendant and because he was neither the disciplinarian of the household nor a tyrant. Thus, after acknowledging that Jane had a troubled life and she came with some baggage to the courtroom, the hearing justice nonetheless reasoned that she had no reason to lie and make false accusations against Woods. The hearing justice found that defendant's attempt to cast doubt on Jane's credibility did not include any incident that automatically makes her a liar or fabricator, even though her baggage was clearly unpacked and exposed along with all of its permutations and her dreams. We will not interfere with the hearing justice's conclusions with respect to the credibility of the complaining child-witness. We do not have the same vantage point as the presiding judge, and we are unable to assess the witness' demeanor, tone of voice, and body language. Our perspective is limited to analyzing words printed on a black and white record. See, e.g., National Labor Relations Board v. Erie Brush and Manufacturing Corp., 406 F.3d 795, 802 (7th Cir.2005) (The hearing officer was a front row observer for this testimony, giving her a far greater edge in making credibility determinations than we could ever hope to have in reviewing the black and white transcript.). Therefore, on the basis of the record before us, we do not disagree with the hearing justice's conclusion that the jury's findings were based on sufficient evidence. We hold that the Superior Court properly considered the evidence and gave it sufficient weight, and we do not disagree with the rationale of the hearing justice that at best, [defendant] can simply argue reasonable minds could differ. Under those circumstances, motions for new trial are not granted.