State v. Bowers, No. 9604

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: RENTTO; BORERTS; ROBERTS
• Citation: 87 N.W.2d 60,77 S.D. 125
• Parties: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gus BOWERS, Defendant and Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. 9604
• Decision Date: 27 December 1957

Page 60

87 N.W.2d 60 77 S.D. 125 STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Gus BOWERS, Defendant and Respondent. No. 9604. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Dec. 27, 1957.

[77 S.D. 126] Alvin Schulz, State's Atty., Brookings, E. D. Barron, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and appellant.

Roy A. Nord, Madison, for defendant and respondent.

RENTTO, Judge.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the application for a new trial in a criminal prosecution must be in writing.

Defendant Bowers, the holder of a Class D license for the retail sale of non-intoxicating beer, was charged with selling such beer to a minor under the age of 18 years. Upon trial, which required two days, the jury found him guilty. After the jury returned its verdict and was dismissed he made an oral application for a new trial urging the insufficiency of the evidence. It was made a part of the record by the court reporter. The state's attorney was in the courtroom when the motion was made and stated that it was resisted. No hearing was had on said motion. The court took it under

Page 61

advisement and stayed entry of judgment. This occurred late on the night of February 8, 1956, the last day of the trial.

On March 15, 1956, defendant's counsel mailed to the state's attorney a written motion for a new trial based on the same ground and other grounds in addition thereto. Attached to this motion were the affidavits of two of the men who were members of the jury that tried the defendant. This was filed with the clerk on March 16, 1956.

In a letter dated March 15, 1956, addressed to both counsel, the trial judge stated that he had concluded the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. An order granting a new trial on that ground was entered on March 17, 1956. This appeal by the state is from that order.

[77 S.D. 127] It is manifest that the order granting the new trial was a ruling on the oral motion made on February 8th. This seems to be conceded by the defendant. The written motion was never set down for hearing as contemplated by statute. The state on this appeal does not ask us to review the court's conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The effect of its assignments of error is to claim only that the court was without authority to consider the motion because it was not made in writing. In other words, the state does not question what the court did--only the manner of doing it.

While our Revised Code of 1919 made provision for new trials in criminal cases, Secs. 4944, 4945 and 4946, new legislative provisions were introduced into this field by the adoption of our present code in 1939. These appear as SDC 34.4003, 34.4004, 34.4005 and 34.4006. The latter three are concerned with the application for a new trial and the procedure pertinent to its presentation and disposition. Before we had these sections the procedural aspects of a motion for a new trial in criminal cases were the same as those prescribed for such motions in civil cases. SDC 34.4003 pertains to new trials granted by the court on its own motion. A somewhat similar provision authorizing the court to grant a new trial on its own motion in civil cases was in effect before our 1939 revision. Section 2558, Rev.Code, 1919. With some amendment this appears now as SDC 33.1609.

The situations in which the trial court may grant a new trial on its own motion in a criminal case are limited by SDC 34.4003, as is the time in which it may do so. That section provides:

'Upon return of a verdict against the defendant, the court may grant a new trial on its own motion when satisfied there has been such plain disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court, or the evidence, as to indicate that the verdict was rendered under a misapprehension of such instructions or under the influence of passion and prejudice. But such power of the court to [77 S.D. 128] grant a new trial on its own motion must be exercised, if at all, at the time the verdict is returned.'

The court is restricted by that section to granting a new trial on its own motion to situations wherein it is 'satisfied there has been such plain disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court, or the evidence, as to indicate that the verdict was rendered under a misapprehension of such instructions or under the influence of passion and prejudice.'

Our statute concerning the granting of a new trial by the court on its own motion in civil cases has long contained substantially the language above quoted. In Clement v. Barnes, 6 S.D. 483, 61 N.W. 1126, 1127, this court pointed out that it meant 'the verdict must be so perceptibly in disregard of the instructions or the evidence as to satisfy the court upon its announcement, and without the necessity of mature reflection, that the same is grossly erroneous, or the result of passion or prejudice.'

Even though that statute was silent as to the time in which the court could exercise this power it was there held that

Page 62

such had to be done promptly upon the return of the verdict. See also Houck v. Hult, 58 S.D. 181, 235 N.W. 512. That requirement has since been made a part of the statute in both civil and criminal proceedings and given a literal construction. In Hylland v. Lawrenson, 73 S.D. 605, 47 N.W.2d 287, 290, this court had occasion to write concerning that matter. After referring to Houck v. Hult, supra, it said:

'If what was then said left any doubt about the matter we think that the last sentence of said section placed the issue at rest. This sentence reads thus: 'The Court can grant such trial on its own motion only at the time the verdict is returned.' The phrase, 'at the time the verdict is returned', preceded by the word 'only', fixes the time when the trial court must act in granting a new trial under this section.'

[77 S.D. 129] It is clear that the order appealed from may not be justified as one made by the court on its own motion as provided in SDC 34.4003. Nor may it be sustained as an order which the trial judge has an inherent power to grant. That authority is a restricted one in this state. Houck v. Hult, supra; Museus v. Geyer, 75 S.D. 381, 66 N.W.2d 63; 66 C.J.S. New Trial Sec. 116. This appeal does not concern the inherent power of a trial court to grant a mistrial because of occurrences upon the trial.

If the court does not grant a new trial on its own motion, such may be had only on proceedings...