Rodriquez v. Williams
| Decision Date | 13 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 9452--PR,9452--PR |
| Citation | 104 Ariz. 280,451 P.2d 609 |
| Parties | Jesus RODRIQUEZ and Anita Rodriquez, husband and wife, Appellants (Respondents), v. Donald Milo WILLIAMS and Billie June Williams, husband and wife; and Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., a corp'n, Appellees (Petitioners). |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Charles Christakis, Phoenix, for appellants.
McKesson, Renaud, Cook, Miller & Cordova, Phoenix, for appellees.
Plaintiffs sued defendants for personal injuries received in an automobile accident. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendants, and plaintiffs appealed to the court of appeals where the case is docketed as #1 CA-CIV 890.
Shortly thereafter, the trial judge informed counsel for both parties that the superior court clerk had inadvertently destroyed all of the exhibits in the case. Plaintiffs promptly moved for a new trial. The trial judge properly denied the motion for the reason that his jurisdiction ceased upon perfection of the appeal. This principle is well settled in Arizona. State v. Ruben Federico, Ariz., 448 P.2d 399. Any other rule would permit a trial court and an appellate court to consider the same case at the same time. This would make it possible for the trial court to award a new trial on the same day that the appellate court affirmed the judgment. A rule allowing such a result would be workable.
Appellants then filed a motion for a new trial in the court of appeals, alleging that the destruction of the exhibits was not due to any fault on their part; that the exhibits were material and essential to their appeal; and that they could not be replaced. Appellees resisted the motion, citing Yerger v. Bross, 68 Ariz. 104, 201 P.2d 121, for the proposition that an appellate court's jurisdiction on appeal is confined to reviewing judgments of lower courts; that a motion for a new trial is an original rather than an appellate proceeding; that an appellate court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to hear a motion for a new trial.
In so far as Yerger, supra, holds that a motion for a new trial is not a proper pleading to file in an appellate court, we agree. State v. Davis and Sturgeon, 104 Ariz. 142, 449 P.2d 607. The reason for this rule is that an appellate court is neither equipped, nor intended, to function as a forum for hearing evidence or determining issues of fact. Such proceedings properly belong in the trial court.
However, it does not follow from Yerger, supra, that there is no remedy for an appellant who finds that after perfecting his appeal, there is newly discovered evidence, as in Davis, supra, or that parts of the record are missing, as in the instant case. The appellate courts of this state were created by the Arizona Constitution, Articles 6(4) and 6(9), A.R.S., to hear and decide appeals, and they have inherent power to make any orders necessary to carry out those functions. In the now famous words of John Marshall, in M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579, 605:
'Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist (sic) with the letter and the spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.'
The Supreme Court of Delaware states the principle in these words:
Moore v. Moore, Del., 1 Storey 258, 144 A.2d 765 (1958).
What, then, is a litigant's remedy when, because of new evidence or because of a loss of an essential part of the record, his appeal will not be able to give him justice?
In a criminal case, he should file in the court in which the appeal is pending, a motion to suspend the progress of the appeal and to reinstate the trial court's jurisdiction over the case for the limited purpose of hearing evidence, making findings, and entering an order granting or denying a new trial. As we said in State v. Sims, 99 Ariz. 302, 409 P.2d 17:
'Our order directing the superior court to determine the supplementary motion for a new trial was a remand for a limited purpose and reinstated the jurisdiction in the superior court to take the necessary and appropriate action.'
In a civil case, the situation is somewhat different. The prevailing party in the lower court has won the case. We cannot lightly deprive him of his vistory. R.C.P. 59(d), 16 A.R.S., requires that a motion for a new trial in a civil case be filed within 10 days (except when based upon new evidence, in which case it must be filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sahagun-Llamas
...of record, superior court "should then ‘assist counsel to overcome the loss of the missing records’ " (quoting Rodriquez v. Williams , 104 Ariz. 280, 283, 451 P.2d 609, 612(1969) )).¶12 In this case, the trial court acknowledged it could not serve as the active referee contemplated by the r......
-
Royce C. v. Dep't of Child Safety
...review," id. at 32, 101 S.Ct. 2153, as this court is not able to receive evidence or make factual findings, Rodriquez v. Williams , 104 Ariz. 280, 282, 451 P.2d 609, 611 (1969) ; see also S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Lueck , 111 Ariz. 560, 576, 535 P.2d 599 (1975). ¶28 Unfortunately, the current ......
-
In re Heredia
..."failed to file any [such] motion citing Rule 44."7 We disagree.¶23 "[W]e look to substance rather than form," Rodriquez v. Williams, 104 Ariz. 280, 283, 451 P.2d 609, 612 (1969). In his motion to set aside default, Adrian cited Rule 85, requesting that the trial court set aside the entry o......
-
Best v. State
...the court's order, that the core issue below, as on appeal, was whether Best complied with § 12-821.01. See Rodriquez v. Williams, 104 Ariz. 280, 283, 451 P.2d 609, 612 (1969) ("[W]e look to substance rather than to form."). Failure to comply with § 12-821.01 is an affirmative defense prope......