In reviewing a motion for a new trial based on a conviction purportedly not supported by the evidence, what is the standard of review?

In reviewing a defendant's motion for a new trial based on a conviction purportedly not supported by the evidence, the trial court sits as a 13th juror and not only weighs the evidence, but also determines whether the evidence was believable. (People v. Lagunas (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1030, 1038, fn. 6.) Defendant claims the court erred in ruling on the new trial motion because the court "seemed to believe that the question it was asked to address was whether there was sufficient evidence to uphold the verdict on appeal." In other words, he claims the court used the substantial evidence standard of an appellate court, and did not conduct the independent review called for when considering a new trial motion.

We do not agree. While we presume the court used the proper standard of review (People v. Sangani (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1139) absent evidence to the contrary, it is also evident from the court's statements that it conducted an independent review of the evidence. "[I]n terms of asking this court to grant a new trial based on the

Page 16