Skip to content
Name: People v. Eroshevich et al.
Case #: S210545
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 11/03/2014

Where appellate court reversed trial court's order granting new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial if, on remand, the trial court grants the new trial motion on grounds other than insufficiency of the evidence. Defendants Eroshevich and Stern were convicted of conspiring to obtain controlled substances by fraud and providing false names for prescriptions in connection with the death of Anna Nicole Smith. The trial court granted Stern's motion for a new trial and dismissed the charges against both defendants based on insufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court reversed and reinstated…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Carter
Case #: B251727
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 06/24/2014

When judge's remarks preceding denial of new trial motion reflect that the court is applying an incorrect legal standard, an appellate court must consider the judge's comments in its review. A jury convicted Carter of commercial burglary of a Wells Fargo Bank. A truck belonging to Carter's father, which Carter used in his flooring construction business, was captured on surveillance video during the burglary. A screwdriver bearing Carter's DNA was found inside a damaged automated teller machine. The person captured on video committing the burglary wore a disguise and resembled Carter. In his defense, Carter presented evidence that he…

View Full Summary
Name: Rogers v. Marshall
Case #: 10-55816
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/17/2012

The hearing on a motion for new trial is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding and the denial of a request for counsel at that stage, after a prior waiver of counsel, is a Sixth Amendment violation. Rogers entered a Faretta waiver and represented himself at trial. Once there were jury verdicts against him, he timely requested that the court appoint counsel to represent him for the purpose of filing a motion for new trial. The request was denied on the basis that he had previously elected to represent himself. The Ninth Circuit found the California court's application of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gann
Case #: D055431
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/24/2011

Hearsay statements, the pre-arrest statements of a sister, were admissible at the trial of her brother based on their conspiracy to kill their stepfather and to make the murder look like a home-invasion robbery by a masked intruder. The exception to the hearsay rule in Evidence Code section 1223 applied even though no conspiracy was charged, so long as there was a foundation of prima facie evidence of a conspiracy that did not end with the substantive offense of the killing, but also included the 911 call and police interviews as steps taken to cover up the killing. There was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bryant
Case #: B219277
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/24/2011

Affidavits submitted as evidence in a motion for new trial must meet the requirements of section 2015.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) by being signed as true under penalty of perjury and reflecting the place of execution, or that it was made under the laws of California. Following his conviction for robbery with the use of a firearm, appellant filed a motion for a new trial, attaching a declaration from a juror stating that one of the other jurors had used his cell phone to look up the definition of reasonable doubt, and that penalty was considered and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Reed
Case #: A123967
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/13/2010

When a defendant moves for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), the trial court has a duty to inquire into the basis for the allegations. After a jury convicted appellant, counsel moved for a new trial based on insufficient evidence. When that was denied, appellant indicated through his attorney that he wanted a new trial based on "incompetence" of counsel. Defense counsel then stated he could not make that motion on behalf of appellant. The court responded that it could not consider the request, and that this would be a matter for appellate…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Braxton
Case #: S114375
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 12/13/2004

Under Penal Code section 1202, when a court refuses or neglects to hear a defendant’s new trial motion prior to judgment, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. The trial court here refused to entertain the defendant’s oral motion for new trial on the day of sentencing. The court of appeal reversed the order and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, holding that under the circumstances the proper remedy was to remand for a hearing on the motion for new trial. When a trial court has refused or…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Moreda
Case #: A098565
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/11/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 8/18/04

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, plus a consecutive 25 years to life term because of the use of a firearm in the offense. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by a judge who did not preside over the jury trial. On appeal he contended that the judgment had to be reversed because the denial of the motion constituted a violation of due process, arguing that he was entitled to have the trial judge who presided at trial determine whether the verdict was against the weight…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. DeLouize
Case #: S108119
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 05/24/2004

Appellant was convicted of multiple sex offenses, and following trial, filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred by instructing the jury in the language of CALJIC 2.50.01. The trial court granted the defense motion for new trial on the day set for pronouncement of judgment. The prosecution did not appeal. After the expiration of the sixty day period within which the prosecution could have filed its appeal, the prosecution brought a motion requesting reconsideration of the order granting a new trial. The prosecution argued there had been a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Braxton
Case #: A096083
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 02/10/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 4/23/03

At sentencing on his conviction for attempted murder, appellant’s counsel had three affidavits from jurors indicating possible misconduct, but had not filed a written motion. The court denied him the opportunity to make an oral motion for new trial, stating that a motion would have to be made in writing. The appellate court here reversed. Appellant made a timely motion prior to the pronouncement of judgment, specifically articulated the grounds for the motion, and had three juror declarations to support the motion. The court failed to exercise its discretion, but based its denial on the mistaken…

View Full Summary