2025 Code of Georgia
Title 5 - Appeal and Error (Chs. 1 — 7)
Chapter 5 - New Trial (Arts. 1 — 3)
Article 2 - Grounds (§§ 5-5-20 — 5-5-25)
§ 5-5-21. Verdict against weight of evidence

The presiding judge may exercise a sound discretion in granting or refusing new trials in cases where the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence even though there may appear to be some slight evidence in favor of the finding.

History

Ga. L. 1853-54, p. 46, § 3; Code 1863, § 3641; Code 1868, § 3666; Code 1873, § 3717; Code 1882, § 3717; Civil Code 1895, § 5482; Penal Code 1895, § 1058; Civil Code 1910, § 6087; Penal Code 1910, § 1085; Code 1933, § 70-206.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

• General Consideration
• Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict
• Application
• Appeal or Certiorari from Denial of New Trial

General Consideration

General grounds for new trial are addressed to discretion of trial judge. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (1970).

Authority to grant new trial. —

No court except the trial court is vested by O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20 and O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 with the authority to grant a new trial in a matter relating to the weight of the evidence. Clark v. State, 249 Ga. App. 97, 547 S.E.2d 734, 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 458 (2001), cert. dismissed, No. S01C1171, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 745 (Ga. Sept. 17, 2001).

Defendant claimed on appeal that a conviction for the unauthorized possession of drugs by an inmate, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 42-5-18(b), was contrary to law, contrary to the evidence, and against the weight of the evidence, and that, on that basis, it was error for the trial court to deny a motion for a new trial, but, under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21, only the trial court had the authority to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Collinsworth v. State, 276 Ga. App. 58, 622 S.E.2d 419, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 1146 (2005).

Defendant’s argument that the verdict convicting the defendant of the involuntary manslaughter of defendant’s 17-month-old son was decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence could only be made to a trial court in a motion for new trial, not to an appellate court on appeal. The appellate court did not have the discretion to grant a new trial on these grounds. Lewis v. State, 304 Ga. App. 831, 698 S.E.2d 365, 2010 Ga. App. LEXIS 626 (2010), cert. denied, No. S10C1868, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 73 (Ga. Jan. 13, 2011).

Trial court’s attention was clearly directed to the court’s discretion under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20 or O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21, and there was no indication that the court failed to exercise the court’s discretion in denying the new trial motion. Wilson v. State, 302 Ga. 106, 805 S.E.2d 98, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 776 (2017).

Although the defendant argued that the state failed to prove the.40-caliber bullets found in the defendant’s bedroom were from the same manufacturer as the bullets used in the shooting, and that the appellate court should exercise its discretion as the thirteenth juror and grant the defendant a new trial, that argument had no merit because the appellate court did not have authority to grant a motion for new trial based on O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20 or O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21. Meadows v. State, 316 Ga. 22, 885 S.E.2d 780, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 67 (2023).

Discretion rests solely with trial judge. —

Discretion to grant or refuse motions for new trials because verdict is strongly and decidedly against weight of evidence rests solely in presiding judge. Gledhill v. Brown, 44 Ga. App. 670, 162 S.E. 824, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 449 (1932); Turner v. Masonic Relief Ass'n, 52 Ga. App. 374, 183 S.E. 350, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 635 (1936).

Trial judge alone has the authority to grant new trial on ground that the verdict is strongly and decidedly against weight of evidence. Josey v. State, 197 Ga. 82, 28 S.E.2d 290, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 461 (1943); Wright v. State, 173 Ga. App. 408, 326 S.E.2d 584, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2630 (1985); Hood v. State, 192 Ga. App. 150, 384 S.E.2d 242, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 942 (1989); Dixon v. State, 192 Ga. App. 845, 386 S.E.2d 719, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1226 (1989); Madaris v. State, 207 Ga. App. 145, 427 S.E.2d 110, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 103 (1993).

Evidence supported the defendant’s malice murder conviction when the defendant shot the victim because the defendant believed the victim took $400 and the defendant’s phone, given that a witness saw the defendant meet the victim at the door of the defendant’s house, call the victim a bitch, and yank the victim’s arm, then the witness heard a gunshot, and the defendant admitted shooting the victim but claimed it was accidental. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial on general grounds. Smith v. State, 300 Ga. 532, 796 S.E.2d 671, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 36 (2017).

Motion for new trial based on O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20, i. e., that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, addresses itself only to the discretion of the trial judge. Whether to grant a new trial based on O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21, i. e., that the verdict is strongly against the evidence, is a decision that is solely in the discretion of the trial court. An appellate court considers only the sufficiency of the evidence before the jury. Henderson v. State, 304 Ga. 733, 822 S.E.2d 228, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 790 (2018).

Order showed trial court exercised discretion. —

Trial court did not err in denying driver two’s motion for new trial because driver two failed to show that the trial court failed to apply the proper legal standard or failed to exercise its discretion in adjudicating her motion; the trial court stated that it considered the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of the evidence and determined that a new trial was not warranted. Sangphim v. Warcup, No. A26A0739, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 349 (Ga. Ct. App. 2026).

Duty upon trial judge to exercise discretion. —

Motion for a new trial on grounds set forth in former Code 1933, §§ 70-202 and 70-206 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-520 and 5-5-21) addressed the sound legal discretion of the trial judge and the law imposes upon the judge the duty of exercising this discretion. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460, 128 S.E.2d 496, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 531 (1962); Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1426 (1977), vacated, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 2356 (1978).

Trial court failed to apply the proper standard in assessing the weight of the evidence as requested by the defendant in the defendant’s motion for new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21. The issue was not whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, but whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Manuel v. State, 289 Ga. 383, 711 S.E.2d 676, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 475 (2011).

When faced with a motion for new trial based on general grounds, the trial court had the duty to exercise the court’s discretion and weigh the evidence. The trial court did not exercise the court’s discretion when the court evaluated the general grounds by applying the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) to a motion for new trial based on the general grounds embodied in O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21. Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262, 737 S.E.2d 311, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 3 (2013).

Trial court failed to apply the proper standard in assessing the weight of the evidence as requested by the defendant in the defendant’s motion for new trial, requiring remand for the trial court to apply the proper standard to the general grounds and to exercise the court’s discretion to sit as a thirteenth juror pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21. White v. State, 293 Ga. 523, 753 S.E.2d 115, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 642 (2013).

Appellate court vacated the trial court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion for new trial because the record failed to indicate that the trial court fulfilled the court’s duty of exercising the court’s discretion under the applicable standard set forth in O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21. Gordon v. State, 329 Ga. App. 2, 763 S.E.2d 357, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 605 (2014).

In a murder case, the record indicated that, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court was aware of and exercised the court’s discretion to weigh the evidence in the court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion for new trial on the general grounds under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 because the trial court specifically responded that the court would not grant a new trial as the thirteenth juror. Allen v. State, 296 Ga. 738, 770 S.E.2d 625, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 181 (2015).

Because the trial court expressly and incorrectly stated that the defendant had not advanced the issue that the trial court did not act as the thirteenth juror, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and the case was remanded solely for the trial court to consider the court’s discretion to sit as the thirteenth juror. King v. State, 344 Ga. App. 244, 809 S.E.2d 824, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 10 (2018).

When the defendant’s post-conviction counsel argued at a new trial hearing that a successor judge should grant a new trial on the general grounds, counsel knew that the judge planned to review only those portions of the trial transcript that counsel presented; counsel therefore waived any complaint that the judge failed to conduct a full general-grounds review of all of the evidence under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21. However, a successor judge should consider all of the trial evidence. Hill v. State, 310 Ga. 180, 850 S.E.2d 110, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 750 (2020).

Discretion to grant new trials should be exercised with caution. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1183 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 663 (1979).

New trial should be granted only when evidence preponderates heavily against verdict. —

Power to grant new trial under this section should be invoked only in exceptional cases in which evidence preponderates heavily against verdict. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1183 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 663 (1979) (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20).

Discretion duty applies no matter how many verdicts have gone against movant. —

In all cases when motion for new trial is being passed on by trial judge, no matter how many verdicts have gone against losing party, law places on the judge a solemn responsibility to exercise discretion in granting or refusing new trial. Mills v. State, 188 Ga. 616, 4 S.E.2d 453, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 581 (1939).

Discretion given trial courts and limitations on appellate review. — Trial courts have discretion to grant a new trial on the grounds set forth in O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, but appellate courts do not. Appellate review is limited to the legal sufficiency of the evidence; even when asked to review a trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial on the general grounds, the appellate court must review the case under the sufficiency standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Plez v. State, 300 Ga. 505, 796 S.E.2d 704, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 54 (2017).

Although the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant as a party of sexual exploitation of children, aggravated sodomy, child molestation, and first degree cruelty to children, the judgment was vacated because the successor judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial as there was no evidence that the successor judge reviewed the evidence under the appropriate discretionary standard in determining whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or offended the principles of justice and equity. Wiggins v. State, 330 Ga. App. 205, 767 S.E.2d 798, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 826 (2014), cert. denied, No. S15C0648, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 209 (Ga. Mar. 30, 2015).

Incorrect standard applied. — Trial court applied the wrong standard when reviewing the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on general grounds, applying the sufficiency of the evidence standard rather than the standard embodied in O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21. Atkins v. State, 342 Ga. App. 849, 805 S.E.2d 612, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 423 (2017).

Because the trial court failed to apply the proper standard when considering the defendant’s motion for new trial as the court found that the testimony of the victim and the investigator was sufficient under the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) standard, the judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for consideration of the motion for new trial under the proper legal standard. Cook v. State, 351 Ga. App. 845, 833 S.E.2d 544, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 508 (2019).

On motion for new trial, court may weigh evidence and consider credibility of witnesses. If court reaches conclusion that verdict is contrary to weight of evidence and that miscarriage of justice may have resulted, verdict may be set aside and new trial granted. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1183 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 663 (1979).

Trial court did not apply the wrong standard in denying a defendant’s motion for new trial by noting, in response to the defendant’s argument that the eyewitnesses were not credible, that the credibility of the witnesses was for the jury unless “they were just way in left field.” Tolbert v. State, 313 Ga. App. 46, 720 S.E.2d 244, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 1005 (2011), cert. denied, No. S12C0603, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 723 (Ga. Sept. 10, 2012).

Role of court as thirteenth juror.

Although the trial court exercised the court’s discretion as the thirteenth juror to assess the credibility of at least one witness, the court failed to properly fulfill the court’s affirmative statutory duty to independently weigh the trial evidence and identify any offending testimony. It was incumbent upon the trial court to then examine and weigh the remaining evidence and independently consider whether the jury’s verdict was contrary to the evidence or was against the weight of the evidence. State v. Reid, 331 Ga. App. 275, 770 S.E.2d 665, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 136 (2015).

Following the defendant’s felony murder trial, the trial court’s order explicitly stated that the court declined to “exercise its discretion as a ‘thirteenth juror”’ only after weighing “the motion, the record of the case, and arguments of counsel” and finding both that the court believed there was sufficient evidence for the verdict and that the verdict “did not violate principles of justice and equity”. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the trial court used the correct standard. Lowery v. State, 310 Ga. 360, 851 S.E.2d 538, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 765 (2020).

Failure to exercise discretion. — Because the trial court specifically stated in its order that it was denying the defendant’s motion for new trial after consideration of the pleadings, the transcript of proceedings, and the applicable law, the trial court did not state the incorrect standard in its order, and nothing in the record indicated that the court was unaware of the court’s responsibility to exercise the court’s discretion as the thirteenth juror. Hodges v. State, 309 Ga. 590, 847 S.E.2d 538, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 585 (2020).

In an action for child molestation, rape, and terroristic threats, the successor judge failed to exercise discretion in the review of the defendant’s “general grounds” argument as there was no evidence that the successor judge exercised discretion, weighed the evidence, and determined as the “thirteenth juror” whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or offended the principles of justice and equity. Bernal v. State, 358 Ga. App. 681, 856 S.E.2d 64, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 118 (2021).

Motion for JNOV considered as motion for new trial. —

Although a father’s motion seeking relief from a child support order was styled as a JNOV, and there had been no jury verdict, the trial court had plenary authority to consider it as a motion for new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20 or O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21, or a motion to set aside the judgment, based on the substance of the motion. Wheeler v. Akins, 327 Ga. App. 830, 761 S.E.2d 383, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (2014).

Appellate court must presume trial court exercised discretion. —

Although a trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for new trial did not state that the trial court exercised the court’s discretion as a thirteenth juror, the appellate court presumed that the trial court knew the rule as to the necessity of exercising the court’s discretion in granting or refusing new trials; the order denying a new trial was taken to mean that the judge had, in the exercise of his or her discretion, approved the verdict. Butts v. State, 297 Ga. 766, 778 S.E.2d 205, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 696 (2015).

Although the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for new trial did not explicitly state that the court exercised the court’s broad discretion as the thirteenth juror, the appellate court presumed that the trial judge knew the rule as to the necessity of exercising the judge’s discretion, and that the judge did exercise discretion, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Morris v. State, 303 Ga. 192, 811 S.E.2d 321, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 134 (2018).

All conflicts are resolved to favor verdict in determining whether there is any evidence supporting the verdict. Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583, 247 S.E.2d 57, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1053 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 928, 99 S. Ct. 1265, 59 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1979).

Inference in favor of verdict. —

After verdict, in passing upon motion for new trial, that view of the evidence which is most unfavorable to the accused must be taken, for every presumption and every inference is in favor of the verdict. Brown v. State, 71 Ga. App. 522, 31 S.E.2d 85, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 145 (1944).

Motion for new trial must be made before trial court. —

Argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence may only be made to a trial court in a motion for new trial and not to the appellate court on appeal as the appellate court has no discretion to grant a new trial based on such a claim. Teele v. State, 319 Ga. App. 448, 738 S.E.2d 277, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 1063 (2012), cert. denied, No. S13C0640, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 528 (Ga. June 3, 2013).

Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict

New trial may be granted without demanding a judgment n. o. v. for the weight of evidence may be on one side, yet there be some to the contrary. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (1970).

Motion for judgment n. o. v. may be denied without precluding grant of new trial; for though there may be some evidence, the verdict may still be against the weight of the evidence. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (1970).

Denial of new trial on general grounds unexcepted to preclude judgment notwithstanding verdict on appeal. —

When trial judge denies motion for new trial on general grounds, the judge finds that verdict is not against weight of evidence and therefore, of necessity, that there is evidence to support the verdict. That determination being unexcepted to, the law of the case is established and the appellate court cannot find on motion for judgment n. o. v. that there is no evidence to support verdict or that evidence demands a verdict for the movant. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (1970).

Application Proper standard of review. —

In a prosecution for, inter alia, hijacking a motor vehicle, a trial court incorrectly applied the standard in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), when deciding a defendant’s challenge in a motion for a new trial as to the weight of the evidence; the trial court had to reconsider the claim pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21. Rutland v. State, 296 Ga. App. 471, 675 S.E.2d 506, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 259 (2009).

Trial court, on the court’s own motion, did not err in granting the defendant a new trial on general grounds because the trial court’s written order unequivocally applied the correct standard of review in granting the new trial, explaining that the court was granting a new trial because the verdict was contrary to the evidence and principles of justice and equity. State v. Hamilton, 306 Ga. 678, 832 S.E.2d 836, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 596 (2019).

Jury’s fact finding not final until verdict approved when motion for new trial is made. —

No finding of fact by jury is final or conclusive when motion for new trial is presented, unless and until that verdict is approved by trial judge. Mills v. State, 188 Ga. 616, 4 S.E.2d 453, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 581 (1939).

Trial court’s written order granting a new trial on the general grounds was in compliance with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 5-5-51. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Snead, 231 Ga. App. 406, 499 S.E.2d 173.

There was no merit to the defendant’s claim that a new trial on kidnapping charges was warranted on general grounds because the trial court’s statement that the evidence against the defendant was very substantial, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, the evidence supported the verdict, and the verdict was not contrary to the evidence as the evidence showed that the trial court understood the court’s discretion and declined to exercise discretion. Alexander v. State, 348 Ga. App. 859, 825 S.E.2d 405, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 100 (2019).

Denial of new trial becomes law of case. —

Absent specific appeal from ruling on motion for new trial or enumerating the ruling as error, denial of motion becomes law of case as to all grounds contained therein. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (1970).

No double jeopardy bar. —

Grant of new trial under former Code 1933, § 70-202 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20) or former Code 1933, § 70-206 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21) did not result in statutory double jeopardy bar under Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1 (see O.C.G.A. § 16-1-8(d)(2)). Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1426 (1977), vacated, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 2356 (1978).

Successful motion for new trial at trial level, precludes later plea of former jeopardy. —

Motion for new trial, if granted at trial level, is a forfeiture of any right to plead former jeopardy because of grant of new trial. Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1426 (1977), vacated, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 2356 (1978).

Grant of new trial under section not same as finding evidence legally insufficient. —

Grant of new trial by trial court on ground that verdict is against the weight of evidence under this section, does not amount to a finding that evidence is legally insufficient, and does not thereby bar a second trial under the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1183 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 663 (1979).

Distinction between legally insufficient evidence and verdict against weight of evidence. —

There is a distinction at law between a decision holding the evidence legally insufficient and a discretionary decision of the trial court that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303, 248 S.E.2d 673, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1183 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S. Ct. 1059, 59 L. Ed. 2d 97, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 663 (1979).

Trial court’s review of the evidence under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 differs from its review of the evidence on a motion for a directed verdict under O.C.G.A. § 17-9-1. In the latter case, the trial court has a duty to grant a directed verdict of acquittal when there is no conflict in the evidence and it clearly demands a verdict of acquittal as a matter of law. Lavertu v. State, 325 Ga. App. 709, 754 S.E.2d 663, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 56 (2014).

When some evidence supports verdict.

When trial judge has exercised discretion vested in the judge by law, and there is some evidence to support the verdict, the judgment overruling general grounds of motion for new trial is not error. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460, 128 S.E.2d 496, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 531 (1962).

Because the state proved venue through testimony that the address of the crime scene was in a specific county and because counsel’s actions were within the bounds of reasonable professional conduct, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Henry v. State, 279 Ga. 615, 619 S.E.2d 609, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 504 (2005).

Trial court did not err in denying DUI defendant’s motion for new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 based on the lack of definitive evidence of intoxication from field sobriety tests and the defendant’s acquittal on the charge of failure to maintain a lane because the defendant’s blood alcohol level was 0.159 and two or three empty airplane-size vodka bottles were in the defendant’s car. Lavertu v. State, 325 Ga. App. 709, 754 S.E.2d 663, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 56 (2014).

Sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for armed robbery and other crimes based on the victim identifying the defendant as one of the two robbers and as the robber who had struck the victim with a gun and the defendant was apprehended a short distance from the attack in possession of the victim’s backpack and a pistol within minutes of the attack. Cooper v. State, 342 Ga. App. 351, 801 S.E.2d 589, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 236 (2017), cert. denied, No. S17C2017, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 7 (Ga. Jan. 16, 2018), cert. dismissed, No. S17C2022, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 10 (Ga. Jan. 16, 2018), cert. denied, 584 U.S. 998, 138 S. Ct. 2039, 201 L. Ed. 2d 288, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3176 (2018).

In a suit resulting in a $ 2.2 million jury verdict for a passenger on a gambling ship who fell into a hatch that was open and unwatched, the evidence supported the jury’s attribution of 100 percent of the fault to the ship owner, given that a worker was supposed to be guarding the hatch but was not at the time the passenger fell, and there was no evidence that the passenger was at fault. Golden Isles Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Lowie, 350 Ga. App. 1, 827 S.E.2d 703, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 232 (2019).

Trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion for new trial on general grounds because the trial court properly recited the standard under O.C.G.A. §§  5-5-20 and 5-5-21 and the court refused to sit as arbiter of general grounds, which were solely within the discretion of the trial court. Wright v. State, 365 Ga. App. 415, 878 S.E.2d 751, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 449 (2022).

Defendant’s felony murder conviction involving the death of his six-month old daughter was upheld and the trial court properly denied a new trial because the evidence at trial showed that the child died from blunt force trauma to the head that was intentionally inflicted within the 12-hour period she was in defendant’s sole care and, although circumstantial, the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis other than that of defendant’s guilt. Johnson v. State, 316 Ga. 672, 889 S.E.2d 914, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 127 (2023).

Jury verdict in plaintiffs’ favor in a medical malpractice action was upheld because the expert testimony was not wholly speculative that the child likely swallowed a low-charge battery despite partial speculation about the battery’s charge level but was based on medical records, symptom timeline, and research on battery effects. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying defendants’ motion for a new trial. McWhirter v. Clinkscales, 377 Ga. App. 826, 921 S.E.2d 472, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 420 (2025).

Expert evidence. —

Driver’s motion for a new trial was properly denied when an expert witness in the field of accident reconstruction opined that the second driver’s collision was unavoidable since the driver changed lanes immediately in front of the second driver’s vehicle. Flynn v. Mack, 259 Ga. App. 882, 578 S.E.2d 488, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 243 (2003), cert. denied, No. S03C0959, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 578 (Ga. June 2, 2003).

In a suit when plaintiff mulch seller sought money owed for plastic mulch, and defendants, two individuals doing business as a company, counterclaimed regarding crop damage due to the mulch deteriorating prematurely, the trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in denying the company’s motion for a new trial after the jury returned a verdict in the seller’s favor because, despite the company’s claim on appeal that the evidence supported a finding of breach of express warranty, the testimony of the seller’s vice-president that the seller advised customers on the order form that it could not provide a warranty, provided some evidence to support the verdict. McLeod v. Robbins Ass'n, 260 Ga. App. 347, 579 S.E.2d 748, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 283 (2003).

Inadequacy of damages for pain and suffering. —

Amount of damages returned by jury in verdict, for pain and suffering, sustained because of alleged negligence, being governed by no other standard than enlightened conscience of impartial jurors, the question of inadequacy of verdict is not one which can be raised by general grounds in motion for new trial. Trammell v. Atlanta Coach Co., 51 Ga. App. 705, 181 S.E. 315, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 446 (1935); Brown v. Garcia, 154 Ga. App. 837, 270 S.E.2d 63, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2409 (1980).

Improper award of damages. —

Trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for a new trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 in an action by a produce company and a storage company for damages which arose from an alleged joint venture to grow onions, and the packing, grading, and storage of onions thereafter; the trial court erred in awarding the produce company the total amount of lost profits for onions which the defendant did not account for, as the agreement provided that the defendants and the company would split the profits or losses evenly, and because the storage company failed to provide any evidence of the company’s anticipated expenses, and therefore the company’s proof of lost profits was insufficient as a matter of law. Williamson v. Strickland & Smith, Inc., 263 Ga. App. 431, 587 S.E.2d 876, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1230 (2003).

Fact that verdict is generous is not basis for setting verdict aside. —

Trial judge may exercise sound discretion in refusing new trial in case where verdict may be decidedly and strongly against weight of evidence, but a generous verdict will not be set aside merely for that reason. Evans v. Caldwell, 52 Ga. App. 475, 184 S.E. 440, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 160 (1936), aff'd, 184 Ga. 203, 190 S.E. 582, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 459 (1937).

Fact that verdict is large will not prevent approval if any evidence supports the verdict. Southern Ry. v. Brock, 132 Ga. 858, 64 S.E. 1083, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 429 (1909).

Although plaintiff introduced more witnesses than defendant, judge’s refusal of new trial is not error. McGriff v. McGriff, 154 Ga. 560, 115 S.E. 21, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 419 (1922).

Verdict in favor of party whose evidence does not correspond with pleadings justifies new trial. Western & Atl. R.R. v. Hunt, 116 Ga. 448, 42 S.E. 785, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 136 (1902).

Court refusal to accept verdict not abuse of discretion. —

In action concerning a stock sales agreement, trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion in declining to accept a jury verdict that required the defendant specifically to perform the agreement, but also recommended that bank balance and surplus stock in a warehouse be turned over to the defendant. Brown v. Reeves, 168 Ga. App. 403, 309 S.E.2d 654, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2790 (1983).

Court abuses discretion by refusing to set aside excessive award. —

Trial judge fails to exercise the discretion vested in the judge by law when the judge agrees that the amounts awarded to the plaintiff by the jury are excessive but refuses to set the amount aside or order a new trial on the basis that the judge does not want to impose the judge’s opinion upon the jury. Story v. Monteith, 176 Ga. App. 853, 338 S.E.2d 32, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2448 (1985), rev'd, 255 Ga. 528, 341 S.E.2d 1, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 627 (1986).

Newly discovered evidence and alleged perjury insufficient for new trial. —

Trial court did not err in denying a defendant’s motion for a new trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 based on newly discovered evidence because the “new” evidence—that the defendant’s girlfriend got “five hundred” from the defendant in connection with the incident—did not come to the defendant’s knowledge since the prior trial, and the girlfriend’s alleged perjury would not in itself constitute grounds for a new trial. Jackson v. State, 294 Ga. App. 555, 669 S.E.2d 514, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 1231 (2008).

Motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict as motion for new trial in DUI case. —

Assuming that the defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was a motion for new trial, it was, nevertheless, wholly without merit because the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of driving under the influence (to the extent that the defendant was a less-safe driver, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(1)) because a police officer administered two field-sobriety tests, and defendant exhibited clues of impairment on each. Masood v. State, 313 Ga. App. 549, 722 S.E.2d 149, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 18 (2012).

Judgment sustaining double jeopardy plea in bar reversed in murder case. —

After a mother and daughter were charged with the murder of the daughter’s boyfriend, the judgment sustaining the double jeopardy plea in bar on the basis of insufficient evidence in the first trial was reversed because there was evidence of a common criminal intent, including the women’s presence, companionship, and conduct before and immediately after the fatal shooting. State v. Cash, 302 Ga. 587, 807 S.E.2d 405, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 929 (2017).

After the defendant was found guilty of felony murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of the defendant’s ex-husband, the trial court properly exercised the court’s discretion to grant the defendant a new trial on the general grounds because the court concluded that the jury’s guilty verdicts were decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the principles of justice and equity; and the supreme court would not disturb the first grant of a new trial based on the general grounds unless the trial court abused the court’s discretion in granting it and the law and the facts demanded the verdict rendered. State v. Hamilton, 299 Ga. 667, 791 S.E.2d 51, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 573 (2016).

Trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for new trial on the general grounds because, in the defendant’s first motion for new trial, the defendant did not waive or abandon the defendant’s claims that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and justice, and against the weight of the evidence, which were predicated upon the already existing trial record, by not separately raising those claims in an evidentiary hearing where the focus was upon the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim; and by failing to raise the claims in the defendant’s brief following the evidentiary hearing. State v. Byrd, 341 Ga. App. 421, 801 S.E.2d 99, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 213 (2017).

No abuse in denial of new trial. — Following the defendant’s murder trial, the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial on general grounds, sitting as the thirteenth juror, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 because the trial court’s written order, although provided by the defendant, did not reveal any improper basis for the grant of a new trial and showed that the trial court properly exercised the court’s discretion. State v. Holmes, 306 Ga. 647, 832 S.E.2d 777, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 588 (2019).

Trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for new trial because the witness was a party to the crime of armed robbery as the witness was with the victim before the armed robbery, was present for the robbery’s planning, and had prior knowledge the robbery was going to occur; the witness was present when the armed robbery and shooting occurred, fled the scene with the co-conspirators, and received $50 to stay quiet about the robbery and murder; and the witness’s accomplice testimony was insufficiently corroborated. State v. Grier, 309 Ga. 452, 847 S.E.2d 313, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 517 (2020).

New trial properly denied in criminal case. —

Because, at the hearing on the defendant’s motion for new trial, the defendant clarified that the defendant was solely arguing the points raised in the defendant’s amended motion, and the defendant repeatedly stated that the defendant’s claim was that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s convictions, the defendant could not now be heard to complain that the trial court failed to exercise the court’s discretion under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 in finding that the verdict was strongly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity. Gray v. State, 298 Ga. 885, 785 S.E.2d 517, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 310 (2016), overruled in part, Willis v. State, 304 Ga. 686, 820 S.E.2d 640, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 685 (2018).

Trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial on general grounds because the victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish that the defendant was a party to armed robbery and aggravated assault. Carter v. State, 339 Ga. App. 140, 793 S.E.2d 459, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 594 (2016).

Pretermitting whether trial counsel was deficient in not calling the defendant as a witness at a Jackson-Denno hearing, the defendant failed to show prejudice entitling the defendant to a new trial because the defendant testified at trial about the circumstances of giving an inculpatory statement that the defendant spoke with police for more than four hours, that the police falsely told the defendant the police had DNA evidence, that the defendant had not slept in three days, and that the defendant was worried about the defendant’s children. Davis v. State, 350 Ga. App. 69, 827 S.E.2d 910, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 244 (2019).

Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to exercise the court’s discretion as the thirteenth juror in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial failed as the court never explicitly declined to consider the credibility of witnesses or make clear the court’s belief the court had no discretion to grant a new trial despite disagreeing with the jury’s verdict. Massey v. State, 346 Ga. App. 233, 816 S.E.2d 100, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 354 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1571, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 80 (Ga. Jan. 22, 2019).

Language of the trial court’s order did not show that the court failed to exercise discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial because the trial court expressly addressed the defendant’s argument that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and strongly against the weight of the evidence and concluded that the evidence was sufficient under the case law standard and that the verdict was not contrary to the law and principles of justice. Davis v. State, 350 Ga. App. 69, 827 S.E.2d 910, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 244 (2019).

Evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant fatally shot the victim, and that the defendant did not act in self-defense, because the jury was entitled to give greater weight to the evidence that the defendant had a gun cocked and ready before the meeting with the victim, while the victim was unarmed; the defendant told the homeowner to make the scene look like a burglary and threatened the homeowner; the defendant disposed of the gun and clothes; and there was evidence that the defendant was engaged in a felony drug deal at the time of the shooting, which would preclude the defendant’s self-defense claim; thus, the defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on general grounds. Bannister v. State, 306 Ga. 289, 830 S.E.2d 79, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 437 (2019).

In the order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, because the trial court performed the court’s duty to sit as a thirteenth juror, weighed the evidence, considered the credibility of the witnesses, and found that the verdicts were amply supported by the evidence, and not strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the general grounds was properly denied. Dixon v. State, 309 Ga. 28, 843 S.E.2d 806, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 360 (2020).

Following the defendant’s murder trial, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial based on the general grounds, O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, because multiple witnesses saw the defendant shoot the victim in a mall parking lot, chase the victim down, and then shoot the victim again; the jury was not required to credit the defendant’s testimony that the victim had a gun. A hearing on the motion was not required. Bundel v. State, 308 Ga. 317, 840 S.E.2d 349, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 183 (2020).

Defendant’s murder conviction was supported by evidence that the defendant was a party to the crime, O.C.G.A. § 16-2-20, although the defendant’s friend was the actual shooter, because the defendant drove the vehicle with the other perpetrators and got out, armed, and confronted the victim before the defendant’s friend shot the victim; defendant then drove the car away with the others and then ran away with the shooter after crashing the car. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Williams v. State, 307 Ga. 689, 838 S.E.2d 314, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 42 (2020).

Trial court did not err in failing to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon the general grounds because the trial court’s order set forth the standards applicable, considered the evidence presented at trial in support of the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine, and then explained the decision not to exercise the court’s discretion to grant a new trial as the thirteenth juror. Roundtree v. State, 358 Ga. App. 140, 854 S.E.2d 340, 2021 Ga. App. LEXIS 21 (2021).

In the order denying appellant’s motion for new trial, the trial court, after stating that it independently reviewed the evidence and considered the credibility of witnesses, expressly rejected appellant’s general grounds claim, thus, the trial court’s order showed that it properly exercised its discretion under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, and appellant’s argument was not subject to further review. Madera v. State, 318 Ga. 593, 899 S.E.2d 132, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 57 (2024).

To the extent that appellant contended that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion as a thirteenth juror by the argument that the trial court failed to address the specific issues raised in the amended motion for new trial, the record clearly demonstrated otherwise as the trial court’s order stated that it had reviewed the evidence of record, including re-examining such factors as the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses, as an independent fact finder. Sinkfield v. State, 318 Ga. 531, 899 S.E.2d 103, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 62 (2024).

Court applied the correct standard to the defendant’s general-grounds claim and did not abuse the court’s discretion in that respect because, after noting that the court had considered all the testimony and evidence, and any motive each witness may have had to testify to something other than the truth, the court concluded that the verdict was fair, supported by sufficient evidence, and rationally based upon evidence shown to be consistent and therefore reliable. Bostic v. State, 322 Ga. 688, 921 S.E.2d 295, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 221 (2025).

Insufficient evidence of asportation for kidnapping conviction. —

Defendant’s conviction for kidnapping required reversal because the movement of the victim from one bedroom to another did not further isolate the victim or decrease the potential for rescue, thereby posing no significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the sexual assault and rape; thus, the evidence of asportation was insufficient. Sellers v. State, 325 Ga. App. 837, 755 S.E.2d 232, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 83 (2014), cert. dismissed, No. S14C1238, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 686 (Ga. Sept. 8, 2014).

Trial court did not err in failing to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon the general grounds because the trial court’s order set forth the standards applicable, considered the evidence presented at trial in support of the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine, and then explained the decision not to exercise the court’s discretion to grant a new trial as the thirteenth juror. State v. Grier, 309 Ga. 452, 847 S.E.2d 313, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 517 (2020).

Denial of motion for new trial proper in shoplifting case. —

Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial with regard to the defendant’s trial for felony shoplifting because the testimony of the store’s loss prevention officer established each element of the crime and provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Parham v. State, 320 Ga. App. 676, 739 S.E.2d 135, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 256 (2013).

Appeal or Certiorari from Denial of New Trial

Appellate court does not have same discretion as trial judge who approved verdict. Southern Ry. v. Brock, 132 Ga. 858, 64 S.E. 1083, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 429 (1909).

Supreme Court does not have discretion to grant new trial on grounds enumerated in section; it can only review evidence to determine if there is any evidence to support verdict. Drake v. State, 241 Ga. 583, 247 S.E.2d 57, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 1053 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 928, 99 S. Ct. 1265, 59 L. Ed. 2d 485 (1979).

Because the defendant failed to seek a new trial on the general grounds under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the principles of justice and equity, but rather sought a new trial on the grounds of arguments made at trial, the appellate court could not address these grounds. Slaton v. State, 296 Ga. 122, 765 S.E.2d 332, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 884 (2014).

Function of appellate court is to review sufficiency of evidence, not to determine the weight of the evidence. Though evidence might have authorized a different verdict or verdict is supported by only slight evidence or evidence is conflicting or preponderates against the verdict, when no material error of law appears, the appellate court will not disturb the trial judge’s judgment in overruling the motion for new trial. McBowman v. Merry, 104 Ga. App. 454, 122 S.E.2d 136, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 713 (1961).

Discretion of superior court, on certiorari, to grant new trial in lower court. —

Deaton v. Taliaferro, 80 Ga. App. 685, 57 S.E.2d 215, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 753 (1950).

First grant of new trial is not normally reviewable by appellate courts. —

First grant of new trial to either party will never be reversed by appellate courts, unless verdict set aside by trial judge was absolutely demanded. Gledhill v. Brown, 44 Ga. App. 670, 162 S.E. 824, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 449 (1932).

Ruling on a motion for new trial under Code 1933, § 70-206 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21) or former Code 1933, § 70-202 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-5-20) did not amount to any ruling on evidence as a matter of law, and as a result, first grant of new trial is not normally reviewable by appellate courts. Ricketts v. Williams, 240 Ga. 148, 240 S.E.2d 41, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 1426 (1977), vacated, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S. Ct. 3119, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1145, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 2356 (1978).

Consideration of all evidence presented at trial. —

Although the jury ultimately acquitted the second defendant for the armed robbery and aggravated assault of one of the victims, the trial court, when considering the general grounds for a new trial, was free to consider all of the evidence presented at trial, including the state offered evidence, namely through an accomplice witness’s testimony, that the second defendant had been involved in the planning and setup of the robbery of that victim. Pender v. State, 311 Ga. 98, 856 S.E.2d 302, 2021 Ga. LEXIS 87 (2021).

Sole question on appeal from denial on general grounds. —

Appellate court will not disturb trial court’s refusal to grant new trial if there is any evidence at all to support the verdict, however slight, and regardless of what may be character of witnesses. McBowman v. Merry, 104 Ga. App. 454, 122 S.E.2d 136, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 713 (1961).

On appeal of denial of motion for new trial based on general grounds, sole question for appellate court is whether there is any evidence to support the verdict. Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga. App. 73, 176 S.E.2d 184, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (1970).

Trial judge’s denial of a motion for new trial on evidentiary grounds will be reversed on appeal only if there is no evidence to support the verdict. Ricketson v. Fox, 247 Ga. 162, 274 S.E.2d 556, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 648 (1981).

Even though the trial court did not explicitly cite O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, the language used by the trial court in the court’s discretionary determinations that the evidence at trial was not “sufficiently close” to warrant the grant of a new trial as to either the guilt/innocence or the sentencing verdicts indicated that the trial court did in fact exercise the court’s discretion under the relevant statutory provisions. Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 739 S.E.2d 332, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 201 (2013), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 995, 134 S. Ct. 521, 187 L. Ed. 2d 375, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 7839 (2013), superseded by statute as stated in Williams v. State, 347 Ga. App. 6, 815 S.E.2d 590, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 455 (2018).

Defendant’s argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and, therefore, the trial court erred by denying the motion for a new trial was rejected because the trial court’s order clearly indicated that the court considered the general grounds in denying the motion for new trial and therefore the court exercised the court’s discretion. Lamb v. State, 355 Ga. App. 65, 842 S.E.2d 514, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 253 (2020).

Appellate court cannot set aside verdict on general grounds trial judge could have relied upon. — In considering case in which verdict of jury has approval of trial judge, appellate court is without power to set verdict aside on general grounds upon which the trial judge, in exercise of the discretion vested in the judge, might have set the verdict aside. Gledhill v. Brown, 44 Ga. App. 670, 162 S.E. 824, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 449 (1932).

Because two witnesses heard the defendant threaten to use a gun moments prior to the shooting, and eyewitnesses saw the defendant shoot the victim, the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of the victim, and the trial court did not err when the court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial. Batten v. State, 295 Ga. 442, 761 S.E.2d 70, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 548 (2014).

Georgia Supreme Court could not review the merits of decision by trial court denying appellants’ motions for a new trial as the record showed that trial court properly exercised its authority in refusing to grant a new trial on the general grounds as well as determined that the jury’s guilty verdict was not contrary to the evidence and the principles of justice and equity. Muse v. State, 316 Ga. 639, 889 S.E.2d 885, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 128 (2023).

Appellate court cannot grant new trial if any evidence supports verdict. —

While appellate division of Municipal Court of Atlanta may grant new trial when no evidence supports the verdict, when there is some evidence on which the verdict could be based, and such verdict has the approval of the trial judge, the appellate division of Municipal Court of Atlanta erred in granting a new trial. Turner v. Masonic Relief Ass'n, 52 Ga. App. 374, 183 S.E. 350, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 635 (1936).

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the trial court reviewed the defendant’s motion for new trial under the discretionary thirteenth juror standard based on the court’s own independent review of the trial record and finding no discrepancy between the jury’s conclusions regarding the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and the court’s own views of those matters; moreover, the transcript showed clearly that the court understood the court’s obligations as the so-called thirteenth juror. Burney v. State, 299 Ga. 813, 792 S.E.2d 354, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 649 (2016).

Defendant could challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by appealing the denial of the defendant’s motion for new trial, even though the defendant did not invoke such a ruling from the court at trial. Jones v. State, 219 Ga. App. 780, 466 S.E.2d 667.

New trial motion denied in criminal case. — Evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of murder, aggravated assault, and firearm possession in connection with the shooting death of the victim because the evidence showed that: (1) the defendant’s teenage children made a cell phone call to the children’s parents’ home to tell the parents that the children were being followed by a motorcycle rider; (2) as the children arrived home, the defendant exited from the house with a handgun; (3) the defendant fired two warning shots at the rider when the rider rode past; (4) the rider turned the motorcycle around and when the rider rode past the house again, the defendant fired again as the defendant claimed that the rider swerved toward the defendant; and (5) this shot struck the victim, resulting in the victim’s death. Gear v. State, 288 Ga. 500, 705 S.E.2d 632, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 95 (2011), overruled, State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10, 838 S.E.2d 808, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 98 (2020).

Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial because neither the trial court’s order nor the court’s statement during the hearing that the court was “just going to stick by what the jury did,” demonstrated that the court failed to exercise the discretion afforded to it under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 and merely showed the court’s manner of expressing that the court was exercising the court’s discretion against setting aside the jury’s verdict. Dixon v. State, 341 Ga. App. 255, 800 S.E.2d 11, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 176 (2017).

Appellate court had no basis for disturbing the trial court’s exercise of discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial because the order reflected that the trial court performed the court’s duty using the proper legal standard. Lundy v. State, 341 Ga. App. 767, 801 S.E.2d 629, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 274 (2017).

Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial because sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s convictions for arson and aggravated assault based on the testimony of the witnesses who testified that the witnesses could see the defendant starting the fire through the kitchen windows and witnessed the defendant shoot a shotgun in the direction of a neighbor and four law enforcement officers who were at the scene as well as the defendant’s admission that the defendant set the fire. Jackson v. State, 347 Ga. App. 199, 818 S.E.2d 268, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 485 (2018).

Trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion for new trial as abandoned instead of ruling on the merits of the defendant’s arguments that the verdict of the jury was contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity and was contrary to the weight of evidence because counsel’s failure to file a brief on the hearsay issues constituted an abandonment of the opportunity to make further argument on those issues rather than the entire motion for new trial. Wilson v. State, 349 Ga. App. 386, 825 S.E.2d 843, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 166 (2019).

Order showed trial court exercised discretion. — Following the defendant’s murder trial, the trial judge properly exercised the judge’s discretion as the thirteenth juror under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 in finding that “the state had presented ample evidence” and that “the evidence was not sufficiently close nor represented a failure of justice in general.” Strother v. State, 305 Ga. 838, 828 S.E.2d 327, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 341 (2019).

Trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for new trial on general grounds because several codefendants testified that the defendant was a coconspirator and a participant in the victim’s robbery, there was evidence that the defendant placed the telephone call to summon the victim, that the defendant was the first to confront the victim, and that the robbery was the defendant’s idea. Smith v. State, 350 Ga. App. 336, 829 S.E.2d 408, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 298 (2019).

Defendant’s motion for new trial was properly denied as the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions for malice murder and other crimes arising out of the shooting death of the victim because two eyewitnesses testified that they saw the defendant shoot the victim numerous times; police recovered a.357-caliber revolver with five empty shell casings from the defendant’s coat; and expert testimony established that the bullets recovered from the victim’s body were fired from the gun discovered in the defendant’s coat. Bridges v. State, 314 Ga. 395, 877 S.E.2d 261, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 215 (2022).

Trial court did not commit reversible error when it failed to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial on general grounds because the trial court expressly rejected the defendant’s claim, explaining that it independently reviewed the record and found the verdict was not contrary to the evidence, not decidedly nor strongly against the weight of the evidence, and not contrary to law and the principles of justice and equity, and that decision was not subject to the appellate court’s general review. Lee v. State, 318 Ga. 412, 897 S.E.2d 856, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 31 (2024).

Since the trial court acknowledged the legal standard for granting a motion on general grounds and expressly recognized the court’s discretion in ruling on such a motion, the Georgia Supreme Court presumed the trial court properly exercised the court’s discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial with regard to the defendant’s convictions for malice murder and five counts of child cruelty in the first degree in connection with the stabbing death of the parent of the children. Norwood v. State, 323 Ga. 182, 924 S.E.2d 307, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 259 (2025).

Because the trial court cited the correct legal standards, weighed the evidence, and found that the evidence supported defendant’s guilt, the record showed that the trial court exercised its discretion as the thirteenth juror; to the extent that defendant argued that the trial court exercised its discretion improperly, that argument presented nothing for review because only trial courts had discretion to sit as the thirteenth juror. Scott v. State, 323 Ga. 312, 925 S.E.2d 124, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 5 (2026).

Trial court properly exercised its discretion because the court weighed the evidence and considered the credibility of the witnesses before the court determined that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the general grounds. Jackson v. State, 324 Ga. 75, 927 S.E.2d 266, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 71 (2026).

Illustrative cases. — Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial despite defendant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to prove the identity and value of the items which defendant shoplifted, as there was sufficient evidence to prove the identity and value of the items given that: (1) a store manager saw defendant place items from the manager’s store into the trunk of defendant’s car and identified defendant in a showup identification less than 30 minutes later, after the defendant was stopped for shoplifting at a second store; (2) the manager from the first store identified a number of items that were found in the defendant’s trunk as coming from the first store based on the store code markings on the items; and (3) the packages contained pricing labels. Horne v. State, 260 Ga. App. 640, 580 S.E.2d 644, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 447 (2003).

Because a condemnee did not claim lost profits or business losses, the trial court properly limited the condemnee’s evidence to the value of the property taken and consequential damages to the remainder; because the jury’s valuation was within the range of the evidence, the trial court properly denied the condemnee’s motion for a new trial. Thornton v. DOT, 275 Ga. App. 401, 620 S.E.2d 621, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 980 (2005), cert. denied, No. S06C0194, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 139 (Ga. Feb. 13, 2006).

In a suit on a guaranty, the trial court did not err in denying a guarantor’s motion for a new trial on general grounds, as the jury’s award fell within the range of damages established by the evidence, the guarantor consented to the bank’s modification of the terms of one of the loans, and the guarantor failed to demonstrate prejudice by the court’s instructions. Beasley v. Wachovia Bank, 277 Ga. App. 698, 627 S.E.2d 417, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 185 (2006).

Although defendant received effective assistance from trial counsel, because defendant did not waive or abandon defendant’s claims under O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for new trial. Hartley v. State, 299 Ga. App. 534, 683 S.E.2d 109, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 908 (2009).

Trial court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial under O.C.G.A. § 5-5-21 because the evidence establishing that the defendant and the victims had engaged in a heated argument, which escalated to preparations for a physical altercation, was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s voluntary manslaughter conviction, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-2(a); given the heated exchange and the defendant’s belief that the defendant was in serious danger, there was sufficient provocation to excite the passion necessary for voluntary manslaughter, and the jury was authorized to reject the defendant’s claim of self-defense under O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21(a) and conclude that the defendant was so influenced and excited that the defendant reacted passionately, rather than simply in self defense, when the defendant shot an unarmed victim. White v. State, 312 Ga. App. 421, 718 S.E.2d 335, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 974 (2011).

Trial court was aware of the court’s responsibility as the thirteenth juror and, despite the court’s mention of the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, the court exercised the court’s discretion accordingly when denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial after citing personal observations of witnesses and evidence at trial. Perdue v. State, 298 Ga. 841, 785 S.E.2d 291, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 260 (2016).

Trial court failed to exercise the court’s discretion as the thirteenth juror because, rather than reweighing the evidence presented at trial, the court applied a sufficiency-of-evidence standard when the court considered the defendant’s motion for new trial on general grounds. Holmes v. State, 306 Ga. 524, 832 S.E.2d 392, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 521 (2019).

Defendant’s contention that the trial court did not fulfill the court’s role as the 13th juror when denying the defendant’s motion for new trial on general grounds was rejected because it specifically acknowledged that defendant was moving the trial court to reverse the defendant’s convictions under the discretion given to the trial court by O.C.G.A. §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 and then denied the motion based on the specific finding that it was not an exceptional case in which the evidence preponderated heavily against the verdict. Drennon v. State, 314 Ga. 854, 880 S.E.2d 139, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 282 (2022).

Trial court properly exercised the court’s discretion in denying defendant a new trial after finding that the jury’s guilty verdict was not contrary to the evidence and the principles of justice and equity, nor was it decidedly against the weight of the evidence. Allen v. State, 315 Ga. 524, 883 S.E.2d 746, 2023 Ga. LEXIS 18 (2023).

Where the trial court’s order denying a defendant’s motion for new trial provided that: “The Court having considered defendant’s Motion for New Trial and Amended Motion for New Trial, and the matter having regularly come before the Court, after having considered the briefs and argument of counsel, it is hereby ordered that the defendant’s motion for new trial is DENIED”, it was sufficient to support a finding that the trial court conducted a thirteenth juror review. Rivera v. State, 375 Ga. App. 211, 915 S.E.2d 412, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 163 (2025).

Trial court failed to apply the proper standard in considering plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the general grounds by not exercising the court’s discretion as the thirteenth juror to weigh the evidence because the trial court explicitly stated the court would not reweigh evidence or judge credibility. Thomas v. Accurate Steel Rule Cutting Die, Inc., 375 Ga. App. 457, 916 S.E.2d 510, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 207 (2025).

Denial of motion for new trial improper. —

Defendant was entitled to a new trial because the order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made only the legal determination that the evidence was sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), and did not show that the successor judge exercised discretion, weighed evidence, and acted as the thirteenth juror in determining whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence or offended the principles of justice and equity. Wiggins v. State, 330 Ga. App. 205, 767 S.E.2d 798, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 769 (2014).

Trial court erred by denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial because the motion hearing transcript clearly showed that the appellant requested the trial court to exercise the court’s discretion to review the evidence as a thirteenth juror, but in the court’s order denying the motion, the trial court stated that, “The testimony and the other evidence introduced at trial was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” which was not the proper standard of review. Gomillion v. State, 296 Ga. 678, 769 S.E.2d 914, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 150 (2015).

Research References & Practice Aids

Law reviews.

For survey of cases dealing with criminal law and criminal procedure from June 1, 1977 through May 1978, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (1978).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S.

23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1973. 66 C.J.S., New Trial, §§ 117, 125, 237 et seq., 283.

ALR.

Power of court to reduce or increase verdict without giving party affected the option to submit to a new trial, 53 A.L.R. 779; 95 A.L.R. 1163.

Power of trial court to dismiss defendant in criminal case for insufficiency of evidence after submitting case to jury or after verdict of guilty, 131 A.L.R. 187.

Court’s power to grant new trial as to both defendants, over their objection, because of verdict holding employer and absolving employee for latter’s negligence, 16 A.L.R.2d 969.

Hierarchy Notes:

O.C.G.A. Title 5

O.C.G.A. Title 5, Ch. 5

O.C.G.A. Title 5, Ch. 5, Art. 2