What is the test for a motion for a new trial under the deferential abuse standard?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Martin, E055424 (Cal. App. 2014):
This court reviews the trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Howard (2010) 51 Cal.4th 15, 43.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for abuse of abuse of power in the context of a motion to overturn a finding that the trial court abused power on the Pitchess motion? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
How does the court review a motion denying a new trial under the deferential abuse of standard? (California, United States of America)
In arguing that the trial court abused its power to deny a motion to sever an indecent exposure charge from a sexual assault charge, does defendant rely on Earle v Earle to argue that the motion was abused? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant obtain a new trial on the grounds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion on the same grounds as the previous motion? (California, United States of America)
In a motion for a new trial, does the trial judge abuse his discretion in denying the motion? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for denying a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion under the first two grounds? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for abuse of abuse of authority in denying a motion for a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing a motion for a new trial, does the appellate court apply the standard of "abuse of discretion" in denying the motion? (California, United States of America)
