People v. One 1947 Cadillac 4-Dr. Sedan Engine No. 8433320

California Court of Appeal Feb 28, 1952 No. Civ. 18474Published

Before: Wood (Parker)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion for a new trial, as the court is empowered to reconsider and reweigh all evidence, including its own prior credibility determinations, when ruling on such a motion.

Issues

Whether a trial judge in a non-jury trial may grant a new trial after previously expressing disbelief in the prevailing party's witnesses.
Whether a trial court has the discretion to reweigh evidence and change its factual conclusions upon a motion for a new trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Irrespective, however, of whether there 'was additional evidence, the trial court was empowered and required, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial, to reconsider and reweigh all the evidence which was before the court at the trial.”

“Under such circumstances, the judge is afforded an opportunity in the exercise of sound discretion to correct the error by granting a new trial.”

“The trial court herein did not abuse its discretion.”

WOOD (Parker), J.

Action for the forfeiture of an automobile to the state. The Notice of Seizure and Intended Forfeiture Proceedings, filed by the attorney general, alleged that the automobile was seized on October 17, 1949, by the Division of Narcotic Enforcement pursuant to section 11611 of the Health and Safety Code; that the automobile was used to unlawfully transport heroin.

In a trial without a jury, the court found that the automobile was owned by Milton T. Shafer, and that the automobile was not used unlawfully as charged. Judgment was that the automobile be released to said Shafer.

Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon the grounds that the judgment is contrary to the evidence and the law, and that the court committed error in the exclusion of evidence. On March 31, 1950, as shown by a minute order of that date, the motion for a new trial was granted upon the ground that the judgment is contrary to the evidence. On April 4, 1950, the trial judge signed and filed an order which specified in part that plaintiff’s motion for a new trial “is hereby granted upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment.” Shafer appeals from the order granting the motion for a new trial.

Appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. At the trial, and just preceding the announcement of the decision in favor of Shafer, the trial judge said that he did not believe the three police officers who were called as witnesses by the plaintiff. Appellant argues that since the trial judge “in the pronouncement of the reasons for his decision” made it clear that he did not believe the witnesses produced by the plaintiff, he did not have the right, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial, to change his original conclusions in the absence of a clear “augmentation by way of evidentiary matter.” On cross-examination, the deputy attorney general asked Shafer if he had been convicted of a felony, and he replied that he had not been so convicted. Thereupon the deputy attorney

[506]

general offered in evidence a certified copy of “a judgment of conviction” in the United States District Court. Shafer’s counsel objected to the offer upon the ground that it did not appear that the judgment was final. Upon

voir dire

People v. One 1947 Cadillac 4-Dr. Sedan Engine No. 8433320

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief