Choisnet v. State
292 Ga. 860
| Ga. | 2013Background
- Appellant Fredrick Choisnet, Jr. was found guilty but mentally ill of malice murder and possession of a knife during a crime in September 2010.
- Appellant filed an amended motion for new trial asserting the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence, under OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21.
- The trial court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and applied Jackson v. Virginia, instead of the proper standard for the general grounds.
- The court did not assess witness credibility as part of the weight-of-the-evidence review, conflicting with Alvelo v. State.
- The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for the trial court to apply the correct legal standards for the amended motion for new trial.
- Judgment vacated and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court used the proper standard for the general grounds on new trial. | Choisnet contends the court applied Jackson v. Virginia. | State agrees remand is needed to apply the correct standard. | Remanded to apply the proper standard. |
| Whether weight and witness credibility should be considered when ruling on the amended motion. | Credibility and weight of evidence should be evaluated by the trial court. | Trial court review should follow the appropriate weight-evidence standard. | Remanded to consider weight and credibility under the correct standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262 (Ga. 2013) (establishes thirteenth-juror discretion and proper standard distinction in new-trial review)
- Manuel v. Stewart, 289 Ga. 383 (Ga. 2011) (limits improper application of Jackson v. Virginia to OCGA § 5-5-20/21)
- Alvelo v. State, 288 Ga. 437 (Ga. 2011) (requires credibility consideration in weight of evidence review)
- Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707 (Ga. 2013) (discusses proper standard in new-trial context)
- Moore v. Stewart, 315 Ga. App. 388 (Ga. App. 2012) (cites related procedures on motions for new trial)
- Hartley v. State, 299 Ga. App. 534 (Ga. App. 2009) (illustrates review standards for new-trial motions)
- Rutland v. State, 296 Ga. App. 471 (Ga. App. 2009) (addressed scope of appellate review vs. trial discretion)