The State v. Arline., 345 Ga. App. 178

Defendant Ronald Arline was convicted by a jury of aggravated child molestation, rape, and child molestation; the trial court later granted his motion for new trial on the general grounds.
Late in trial (day seven), after the state rested, the alleged victim told prosecutors she had been sexually active with an adult male other than Arline during the charged timeframe — a disclosure made after the jury had heard the evidence and which the defense did not present to the jury.
The trial court found that this untimely disclosure created a significant strategic dilemma for defense counsel and that the jury never learned potentially material evidence that had been revealed to the court/prosecutors late in the proceedings.
The trial court concluded the verdict, while legally sufficient based on the evidence the jury heard, was nevertheless "contrary to the principles of justice and equity" and granted a new trial under OCGA § 5-5-20.
The State appealed, arguing (1) the trial court misapplied OCGA § 5-5-20 because the statute, the State contends, requires the verdict be contrary to the evidence the jury heard, and (2) the trial court’s order showed judicial bias against the State and the victim.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion to grant a new trial on general grounds and that the order did not create disqualifying bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may grant a new trial under OCGA § 5-5-20 when the verdict is legally sufficient based on the evidence the jury heard but injustice arises from material evidence presented to the court (but not the jury).	The State: § 5-5-20 requires the verdict be contrary to evidence (i.e., evidence the jury heard); because the verdict was legally sufficient, the court lacked power to grant a new trial.	Arline: The trial court may consider all evidence before it, including matters not heard by the jury, to determine whether the verdict is contrary to principles of justice and equity.	The court held the trial judge properly exercised discretion under § 5-5-20 and may consider evidence not presented to the jury; legal sufficiency does not bar a general-grounds new trial.
Whether the trial court’s order evidences judicial bias that requires reversal or disqualification.	The State: The order shows hostility and favoritism toward defendant and the victim is further harmed; this undermines fairness.	Arline: Granting a new trial on general grounds is a permissible exercise of the judge’s role as the "thirteenth juror," not bias.	The court held judicial rulings alone do not establish disqualifying bias and the State failed to show actual bias; no reversible bias found.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard for convictions)
Hornbuckle v. State, 300 Ga. 750 (trial judge’s role as thirteenth juror; factors to consider on general grounds)
Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262 (trial judge charged to let no verdict stand unless conscience approves)
State v. Hamilton, 299 Ga. 667 (appellate deference to first grant of new trial on general grounds)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings generally do not constitute bias)