Court Opinion

ID: 9821603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:15:34.498579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:31.253971
License: Public Domain

VILLANTI, Chief Judge,
Concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion because it accurately reflects the- current state of *698the law which we are required to follow. But I also' concur in Judge Altenbemd’s critique of that law because it includes - no exception for a review of the sufficiency of the evidence when defense counsel makes only a bare bones motion for judgment of acquittal. The lack of any exception is why many trial judges feel an .obligation to ensure that defense counsel actually argues a motion for judgment of acquittal. The State will never- voice an objection to the defense being prompted to argue such a motion because no one is interested in participating in a new trial due to a technical deficiency in the first one. And even a skeletal motion for judgment of acquittal can be sufficient to deal with a case’ that lacks evidence on an element of the crime charged. But many trial judges are fearful of taking such an approach because they do not want to be perceived as activists. -Hence, there is a need to create' a minor exception to the general preservation rule of Steinhorst which will simplify review in the long run.