Opinion ID: 2318953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The New-Trial-Motion Issue

Text: The defendant also appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial. This court will not disturb a trial justice's ruling on a new-trial motion unless the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong. State v. Grundy, 582 A.2d 1166, 1172 (R.I. 1990). The trial justice must act as a thirteenth juror, reviewing the evidence in light of the charge given the jury, and independently appraising the witnesses' credibility and the weight of the evidence. State v. Warren, 624 A.2d 841, 843 (R.I. 1993). If the trial justice agrees with the jury verdict after undertaking this analysis, the trial justice should deny the new-trial motion. Id. The trial justice in the present case engaged in the proper analysis as a thirteenth juror. The trial justice reviewed the evidence presented at trial and independently assessed the credibility of the four witnesses. The trial justice concluded, [i]f I were sitting without a jury I would have come to the exact same conclusion that this jury came and I feel that the evidence was overwhelming. During the trial defense counsel conceded that an act of robbery had occurred at the Saver's Bank in East Providence, but argued that the state did not prove that the defendant was the perpetrator. The sole basis of the defense was identification, and on appeal the defendant argues that the trial justice overlooked the material evidence that both tellers did not identify the defendant in the photographic lineup. The trial justice, however, specifically stated, [t]here were four positive identifications. While it is true that two of the witnesses couldn't identify [the defendant] from the photo spread, the two officers who had contact for a number of years with Mr. Austin had no difficulty upon viewing the videotape stating that it was Mr. Austin. Upon review we conclude that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive relevant and material evidence, nor was he clearly wrong. For the foregoing reasons the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court.