Opinion ID: 1948614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: was the verdict against nations contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence?

Text: This is, in essence, an allegation that the trial judge was in error in overruling the motion by Nations for a new trial. The standard for determining this issue is as follows: While the request for a peremptory instruction or the subsequent motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict presents to the trial court a pure question of law, the motion for a new trial is addressed to the trial judge's sound discretion... . The motion invokes Rule 5.16 of our Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice which authorizes the trial judge to grant a new trial if required in the interest of justice or if the verdict is contrary to law or the weight of the evidence. Under our established case law, however, the trial judge should set aside a jury's verdict only when, in the exercise of his sound discretion, he is convinced that the verdict is contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence... . Gavin, 473 So.2d at 956 (citations omitted). Based on the law of conspiracies and the facts of this case, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge, and there is no merit to this assignment of error.