Can a motion for a new trial be granted on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence?

"An appellate court cannot order a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence if there is any substantial evidence by which the verdict can be supported. [Citations.] But a trial court can grant a motion for new trial where the evidence is legally sufficient and even where the only evidence is that of the prosecution. [Citations.]" (People v. Sarazzawski, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 16.) "Although the trial court is to be 'guided' by a presumption in favor of the correctness of the jury's verdict [citation], this means only that the court may not arbitrarily reject a verdict which is supported by substantial evidence. The trial court is not bound by the jury's

Page 25

determinations as to the credibility of witnesses or as to the weight or effect to be accorded to the evidence. [Citations.] Thus, the presumption that the verdict is correct does not affect the trial court's duty to give the defendant the benefit of its independent determination as to the probative value of the evidence. [Citation.] If the court finds that the evidence is not sufficiently probative to sustain the verdict, it must order a new trial. [Citations.]" (People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1251-1252.)