Opinion ID: 1058506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: thirteenth juror/judgment of acquittal

Text: The defendant asserts that the trial court, acting in its capacity as the thirteenth juror, should have granted a new trial because the guilty verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence. Alternatively, he asserts that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(f) provides that [t]he trial court may grant a new trial following a verdict of guilty if it disagrees with the jury about the weight of the evidence. When a trial court makes a determination following Rule 33(f), the court is acting as thirteenth juror. See State v. Gillon, 15 S.W.3d 492, 500 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997). In the instant case, the trial court expressly approved the verdict as thirteenth juror in the order overruling the motion for new trial. Contrary to the defendant's argument, the trial court is not required to delete from its consideration evidence that might later be found to be inadmissible. The defendant also argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Tenn. R.Crim. P. 29. This court has noted that [i]n dealing with a motion for a judgment of acquittal ... the trial judge is concerned only with the legal sufficiency of the evidence and not with the weight of the evidence. State v. Hall, 656 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tenn.Crim.App.1983). The standard for reviewing the denial or grant of a motion for judgment of acquittal is analogous to the standard employed when reviewing the sufficiency of the convicting evidence after a conviction has been imposed. See State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288, 292 (Tenn.Crim.App.1998). Thus, our review of this issue is encompassed within our previous review of the sufficiency of the evidence.