California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Acosta, C077608 (Cal. App. 2016):
Defendant contends the trial court erred by refusing to entertain his motion for a new trial. He is correct. (See People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 807, fn. 2.) The question then becomes whether "defendant suffered actual prejudice as a result. This will occur when, for example, the reviewing court properly determines from the record that the defendant's new trial motion was meritorious as a matter of law, or the record shows that the trial court would have granted the new trial motion and the reviewing court properly determines that the ruling would not have been an abuse of discretion." (Id. at p. 817.) Again, defendant asserts there was insufficient evidence, independent of his extrajudicial statement, that he knew the firearm was stolen, and the People counter that there was substantial evidence. We conclude there was no actual prejudice because, as set forth above, there is no reasonable probability the trial court would have granted a new trial on this basis.
Page 13
E. Alleged Griffin Error
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.