Opinion ID: 1822420
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: what to do

Text: Other states have addressed this same question. 66 C.J.S. New Trial, § 212 (1950); 58 Am.Jur.2d New Trial §§ 567-568, 570: While judicial power, at a subsequent term, to vacate an order granting a new trial has been sustained, the general rule is otherwise. Id. § 570. See also, Annotation, Power of Court to Vacate or Modify Order Granting New Trial in Civil Case, 61 A.L.R.2d 642 (1958); Annotation, Power of Trial Court or Judge to Revoke Order Granting New Trial in Criminal Case, 145 A.L.R. 400 (1943). In Hefton v. State, 206 Ind. 663, 190 N.E. 847 (1934), the Indiana Supreme Court held: In a note to the case of Luke v. Coleman, Ann.Cas. 1913B, 485, there is a large collection of cases from many jurisdictions which hold that at the term at which a motion for a new trial is granted, the court may vacate the judgment, he cannot do so at a subsequent term. The reason of the rule is obvious. There must be some point where the litigation in the lower court terminates and the right to appeal to the higher court begins. Id. at 668, 190 N.E. at 849-850. And in Commonwealth v. White, 289 Ky. 99, 157 S.W.2d 747 (1941), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held: Therefore, it would seem that the court correctly declined to set aside the setting aside order at the following May term of the court, since the order setting aside the verdict of the jury at the previous January term of the court was, in effect, the granting of a new trial, and it became final upon the adjournment of that (January) term of court. Respondent [the circuit judge], therefore, did not possess the right to reinstate the verdict of the jury at the succeeding or any later term of the court. Id. at 104, 157 S.W.2d at 750. We find the rationale of the Indiana and Kentucky courts correct and also hold that the dispositive portion of the circuit judge's order setting aside the Griffins' convictions under Counts II and III of the indictment had the same finality as a judgment, and certainly with no further action being taken therein in the ensuing regular term of court, the circuit court was without authority thereafter to reinstate the convictions. Some courts have held that the order granting or denying a new trial itself concludes the matter. Thus in Wenzoski v. Central Banking System, Inc., 43 Cal.3d 539, 736 P.2d 753, 237 Cal. Rptr. 167 (1987), the California Supreme Court held: It has long been the rule that A final order granting or denying [a motion for a new trial], regularly made, exhausts the court's jurisdiction, and cannot be set aside or modified by the trial court except to correct clerical error or to give relief from inadvertence under C.C.P. 473. [ Emphasis original ] Id. at 541, 736 P.2d at 754, 237 Cal. Rptr. at 168. In Huffman v. Little, 341 So.2d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977), the court held: An order granting a new trial confers a substantive right and the order is not interlocutory in nature. Hoffman v. Jackson's Minit Markets, Inc., 313 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1975). Therefore, unlike interlocutory orders it does not remain subject to modification. Cf. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wright, 307 So.2d 494 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). In fact, in the absence of fraud or clerical error, once the motion for a new trial is determined it is not even subject to a motion for rehearing. State v. Burton, 314 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1975); Mathis v. Butler, 128 So.2d 142 (Fla.2d DCA 1961); DePadro v. Moore, 215 So.2d 27 (Fla.4th DCA 1968). As to effect of motion for new trial or rehearing, see generally, Trawick's Florida Practice and Procedure, 1975, Section 26-1. Id. at 269. Finally, we believe the Utah Supreme Court's language in Drury v. Lunceford, 18 Utah 2d 74, 76-77, 415 P.2d 662, 663-664 (1966) bears quoting in full: When this has been done and the court has ruled upon the motion, if the party ruled against were permitted to go beyond the rules, make a motion for reconsideration, and persuade the judge to reverse himself, the question arises, why should not the other party who is now ruled against be permitted to make a motion for re -re-consideration, asking the court to again reverse himself? Tenacious litigants and lawyers might persist in motions, arguments and pressures and theoretically a judge could go on reversing himself periodically at the entreaties of one or the other of the parties ad infinitum. This reflection brings one to realize what an unsatisfactory situation would exist if a judge could carry in his mind indefinitely a state of uncertainty as to what the final resolution of the matter should be. [Emphasis original] Even though the new rules of procedure had as a part of their purpose the removing of undue technicalities and rigidities in the law, and are to be liberally construed to effectuate justice, nevertheless, they were designed to provide a pattern of regularity of procedure which the parties and the courts could follow and rely upon. When the procedure authorizing a motion for a new trial has been followed and, pursuant to proper notice, the parties have made their representations to the court, and the court has duly considered and made his decision upon that motion, that completes both the duty and the prerogative of the court. In order to avoid such a state of indecision for both the judge and the parties, practical expediency demands that there be some finality to the actions of the court; and he should not be in the position of having the further duty of acting as a court of review upon his own ruling. Another important consideration in the problem here presented is that when the trial court has made his decision granting the new trial, that has the effect of vacating the judgment and the case reverts to its status before the trial was had. The party favored by the motion acquires an important right in his entitlement to a new trial, which he should not be arbitrarily deprived of, nor should he be subject to the possible whim or caprice of the judge as to whether he can really have the new trial which has been ordered or not. It should be observed that what we have said herein is intended to apply to the fact situation shown in the instant case where, pursuant to regular procedure, the court has acted deliberately and advisedly in granting the new trial. However, we also recognize that there may be situations where an order denying or granting a new trial may have been made by inadvertence or mistake, or where there was some irregularity in connection with the obtaining or the granting of the order, in which instance the court could of course act to correct any such mistake or irregularity. We are not required in this case to decide whether we should adopt the holdings of the California, Florida and Utah courts that an order granting a new trial is not subject to being set aside even at the same term of court except for fraud, mistake, or the like. Rather, we find that the dispositive portion of the order setting aside the Griffins' convictions had all the finality of a final judgment, and clearly the passage of the next term of court deprived the circuit court of any further authority to reinstate them. REVERSED, AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL ON COUNTS II AND III OF THE INDICTMENT. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur.