Opinion ID: 1130924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Motion for New TrialSufficiency of Evidence

Text: The standard for the trial court in ruling on a motion for new trial where it is alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict, is set forth in Quick v. Crane : It is well established that the trial judge may grant a new trial based on I.R.C.P. 59(a)(6) where, after he has weighed all the evidence, including his own determination of the credibility of the witnesses, he concludes that the verdict is not in accord with his assessment of the clear weight of the evidence. Sheets v. Agro-West, Inc., 104 Idaho 880, 883, 664 P.2d 787, 790 (Ct.App.1983). . . . . On a motion for a new trial, the court has broad discretion. On a motion for directed verdict or judgment n.o.v., it has no discretion and must consider only the question of law whether there is sufficient evidence to raise a jury issue. Id. On a motion for a new trial the court weighs the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. . . . . Thus, on a motion for a new trial under this rule, unlike a motion for a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v., the trial judge may set aside the verdict even though there is substantial evidence to support it. 111 Idaho at 766-67, 727 P.2d at 1194-95. This Court has consistently recognized the trial court's important function in ruling on motions for a new trial and has upheld the trial court's ruling unless the trial court has manifestly abused the wide discretion vested in it, or, as in Meissner, [ Meissner v. Smith, 94 Idaho 563, 494 P.2d 567 (1972)] misconceived the law or, as suggested in Blaine v. Byers, [ Blaine v. Byers, 91 Idaho 665, 429 P.2d 397 (1967)] unless the trial judge has applied a `question of law' rule to a decision which must be made as question of fact. Dinneen v. Finch, 100 Idaho 620, 625, 603 P.2d 575, 580 (1979). After correctly enunciating the standard set out in Quick, the trial court held that [I]n this case the Court finds no basis for a new trial on the basis of insufficiency of evidence. As indicated previously with respect to the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, this Court has carefully reviewed the transcript of the proceedings below and is of the opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence.