Opinion ID: 888335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mackrill's Contentions

Text: ¶ 15 We begin with Mackrill's sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, as it provides context for our discussion of the evidentiary issues under Issue 2. As noted, Mackrill filed a post-trial motion contending that the State had failed to present evidence sufficient to prove two matters: (1) that Gluesing did not consent to the assault, and (2) that Gluesing, by reason of intoxication, was unable to make a reasonable judgment as to the nature or harmfulness of the assault. Mackrill asked the District Court either to find him not guilty of aggravated assault or to find him guilty of the lesser offense of misdemeanor assault. ¶ 16 We note that Mackrill captioned his motion as one for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, he refers to the motion as one for a directed verdict and also as one for an acquittal notwithstanding the verdict. Montana's statutes governing criminal procedure, however, do not recognize these motions. See State v. McWilliams, 2008 MT 59, ¶¶ 36, 41, 341 Mont. 517, ¶¶ 36, 41, 178 P.3d 121, ¶¶ 36, 41. Indeed, we have clarified that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is properly referred to as a motion for a new trial under § 46-16-702, MCA. See McWilliams, ¶ 41; State v. Bell, 277 Mont. 482, 485, 923 P.2d 524, 526 (1996). Likewise, we have clarified that a motion for a directed verdict is properly referred to as a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence under § 46-16-403, MCA. See McWilliams, ¶ 36; State v. Rosling, 2008 MT 62, ¶ 21 n. 2, 342 Mont. 1, ¶ 21 n. 2, 180 P.3d 1102, ¶ 21 n. 2. The latter motion (to dismiss for insufficient evidence) is made at the close of the prosecution's evidence or at the close of all the evidence. Section 46-16-403, MCA. Thus, this statute and motion are not applicable here. Rather, we deem Mackrill's motion, which was made following the jury's verdict, to be one for a new trial under § 46-16-702, MCA. Indeed, he cited this statute in the motion. And we once again urge the bench and bar to use the correct terminology. McWilliams, ¶ 36 n. 1; Rosling, ¶ 21 n. 2. ¶ 17 Section 46-16-702, MCA, provides as follows: (1) Following a verdict or finding of guilty, the court may grant the defendant a new trial if required in the interest of justice. A new trial may be ordered by the court without a motion or may be granted after motion and hearing. (2) The motion for a new trial must be in writing and must specify the grounds for a new trial. The motion must be filed by the defendant within 30 days following a verdict or finding of guilty and be served upon the prosecution. (3) On hearing the motion for a new trial, if justified by law and the weight of the evidence, the court may: (a) deny the motion; (b) grant a new trial; or (c) modify or change the verdict or finding by finding the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense or finding the defendant not guilty. ¶ 18 Mackrill contends on appeal that there was insufficient evidence that Gluesing did not consent to fight Mr. Mackrill, and there was ample evidence that he did consent to fight Mr. Mackrill. Thus, according to Mackrill, the District Court should have granted him a new trial or entered a finding of not guilty. Section 46-16-702(3)(b), (c), MCA.