Opinion ID: 2097385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion for New Trial in Probate Court Appeal

Text: The estate moved for a new trial in the Probate Court appeal on December 7, 2007. The trial justice heard argument on the motion and ruled in favor of the estate on December 18, 2007. The Connors challenge the trial justice's decision on the grounds that (1) the jury had ample evidence upon which to base its verdict that Kathleen lacked testamentary capacity to execute the 2002 will or, alternatively, (2) that there was evidence to support their theories of undue influence and/or constructive trust. As this Court has often stated, [w]hen ruling on a motion for a new trial [in a civil case tried to a jury], the trial justice acts as a `superjuror' and `should review the evidence and exercise his or her independent judgment in passing upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.' Seddon v. Duke, 884 A.2d 413, 413 (R.I.2005) (mem.) (quoting Franco v. Latina, 840 A.2d 1110, 1111 (R.I.2004)). The trial justice undertakes his or her independent appraisal of the evidence in the light of his [or her] charge to the jury. Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Association, Inc., 713 A.2d 766, 770 (R.I.1998) (quoting State v. Doctor, 690 A.2d 321, 329 (R.I.1997)). The trial justice may set aside a verdict `when [his or her] judgment tells [him or her] that it is wrong because it fails to respond truly to the merits of the controversy and to administer substantial justice and is against the fair preponderance of the evidence.' Murray v. Bromley, 945 A.2d 330, 333 (R.I.2008) (quoting Candido v. University of Rhode Island, 880 A.2d 853, 856 (R.I. 2005)). This Court will affirm a trial justice's decision on a motion for a new trial on appeal as long as the trial justice conducts the appropriate analysis, does not overlook or misconceive material evidence, and is not otherwise clearly wrong. Id. (quoting Morrocco v. Piccardi, 674 A.2d 380, 382 (R.I.1996)). On appeal, the decision of the trial justice is accorded great weight. Botelho v. Caster's, Inc., 970 A.2d 541, 546 (R.I.2009). Deciding the motion from the bench, the trial justice noted that this Court firmly believes that the jury misconceived probative, relevant and reliable evidence regarding the testamentary capacity of [Kathleen] Connor. He proceeded to review the evidence he found most relevant at trial and discussed the credibility and significance of the testimony of numerous witnesses. He concluded that the verdict suggested that the jury completely disregarded and discredited [the] evidence[,] which [the] Court cannot[,] in the interest of true justice[,] abide. Moreover, the trial justice found no credible evidence of undue influence or conspiracy by [Mary] or [Virginia] to take advantage of [Kathleen], [to] thereby come to her property through [il]licit means   . He concluded that the verdict was against the law [as communicated to the jury] and certainly against the credible, reliable and probative evidence with regard to [Kathleen's] competency to make a will. The trial justice also stressed that granting a new trial was an extraordinary remedy and one that he did not undertake lightly. This Court can find no error in the trial justice's decision to grant a new trial in the Probate Court appeal. He conducted a thorough and searching review of the evidence, undertook the proper legal analysis, and reached his decision only after much deliberation and circumspection.