 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Wakefield6/22/2005
Tenn. Ct. App. 1993); Hatcher v. Dickman, 700 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). " ppellate courts may only affirm the proper exercise of the thirteenth juror function or reverse the improper exercise and remand for a new trial." Dankworth, 919 S.W.2d at 57.
In the case under submission, the trial court entered its order granting the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(c). However, in its order, the trial court recited the facts of the case, weighed evidence, and substituted its own findings for those of the jury. The trial court, fulfilling its role as thirteenth juror, conducted an analysis and made findings that were in accordance with Rule 33, but the court granted the relief available under Rule 29, a judgment of acquittal. We conclude that the trial court's judgment of acquittal must be reversed. However, we also conclude that, because the trial court conducted its thirteenth juror analysis in granting a judgment of acquittal, and the trial court obviously disagreed with the jury's verdict, the appropriate relief in this case is to reverse for a new trial rather than reinstating the jury's verdict. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand the case for a new trial.
III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing reasoning and authorities, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|