§ 3.7.2.6.5.10 Post-Trial Motion Rulings.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.5.10 Post-Trial Motion Rulings. The supreme court has stated that a trial judge’s decision to deny post-trial motions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, recognizing the judge had substantial latitude in deciding whether to upset the verdict. See Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51, 53, ¶ 12, 961 P.2d 449, 451 (1998). However, this general statement also has some qualifications and exceptions. A more specific discussion follows.

Motion For New Trial. A trial court’s decision on a motion for new trial will be affirmed absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. See Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 231 Ariz. 484, 490, ¶ 4, 297 P.3d 176, 182 (App. 2013); In re Estate of Long, 229 Ariz. 458, 464, ¶ 22, 276 P.3d 527, 533 (App. 2012); Goodman v. Physical Resource Eng’g, Inc., 229 Ariz. 25, 28, ¶ 6, 270 P.3d 852, 854 (App. 2011).

The trial court has discretion to grant a new trial when it has made a legal error or error in admitting evidence that materially affects a party’s rights. A decision to grant a new trial on that basis is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion, particularly when based on the admission or exclusion of evidence. See Jackson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 228 Ariz. 197, 199, ¶ 8, 265 P.3d 379, 381 (App. 2011); Henry ex rel. Estate of Wilson v. HealthPartners of S. Ariz., 203 Ariz. 393, 398, ¶ 16, 55 P.3d 87, 92 (App. 2002).

An order granting a motion for new trial is reviewed under a “more liberal standard” than an order denying one. See McBride v. Kieckhefer Assocs., Inc., 228 Ariz. 262, 266, ¶ 16, 265 P.3d 1061, 1065 (App. 2011) (applying abuse of discretion standard); Englert v. Carondelet Health Network,199 Ariz. 21, 25, ¶ 5, 13 P.3d 763, 767 (App. 2000); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Brown,183 Ariz. 518, 521, 905 P.2d 527, 530 (App. 1995) (order will not be overturned absent clear abuse of discretion). A trial court may abuse its discretion in granting a new trial if the probative force of the evidence demonstrates that the verdict was correct. See Cal X-tra v. W.V.S.V. Holdings, L.L.C., 229 Ariz. 377, 403, ¶ 88, 276 P.3d 11, 37 (App. 2012).

Deciding whether to grant a motion for new trial on the grounds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is within the trial court’s sound discretion. Styles v. Ceranski, 185 Ariz. 448, 450, 916 P.2d 1164, 1166 (App. 1996). An order granting a new trial for more than one reason also will be upheld if any of the reasons stated is supportable. See Cotterhill v. Bafile,177 Ariz. 76, 79, 865 P.2d 120, 123 (App. 1993). The appellate court also will uphold a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial absent a clear or manifest abuse of discretion. See Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 95, ¶ 25, 163 P.3d 1034, 1045 (App. 2007) (argument that verdict was against weight of evidence); Larsen v. Decker, 196 Ariz. 234, 244, ¶ 27, 995 P.2d 281, 286 (App. 2000).

The appellate court will reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial only if the court abused its discretion given the record and circumstances of the case. See Warne Invs. Ltd. v. Higgins, 219 Ariz. 186, 194, ¶ 33, 195 P.3d 645, 653 (App. 2008); Golonka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 204 Ariz. 575, 580, ¶ 9, 65 P.3d 956, 961 (App. 2003); Styles, 185 Ariz. at 450, 916 P.2d at 1166 (denial of new trial motion reversed only if it reflects manifest abuse of discretion). A clear abuse of discretion must be shown to reverse denial of a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct, since the trial court is in the best position to determine the effect of the conduct on other jurors. See Brooks v. Zahn,170 Ariz. 545, 549, 826 P.2d 1171, 1175 (App. 1991).

The trial court abuses its discretion if it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion. Accordingly, the court of appeals reviews de novo questions of law included in the motion for new trial. See Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc., 234 Ariz. 351, 355, ¶ 8, 322 P.3d 168, 172 (App. 2014). It will reverse the...