§635-56 Grounds for new trial. In any civil case or in any criminal case wherein a verdict of guilty has been rendered, the court may set aside the verdict when it appears to be so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate bias, prejudice, passion, or misunderstanding of the charge of the court on the part of the jury; or the court may in any civil or criminal case grant a new trial for any legal cause. L 1892, c 56, pt of §1; RL 1925, pt of §2426; am L 1932 2d, c 24, pt of §1; RL 1935, pt of §3742; RL 1945, pt of §10122; RL 1955, pt of §231-22; HRS §635-56
Rules of Court
New trial, see HRCP rule 59; HRPP rule 33; DCRCP rule 59.
Case Notes
Granting of motion on one of several grounds named does not of itself import an overruling of the other grounds. 21 H. 551 (1913).
When judgment has been set aside and a new trial ordered, the issues not being expressly limited by the order, the case is to be tried de novo. 22 H. 221 (1914).
Granting of motion for new trial does not confer any new right but merely relegates parties to their former status. 25 H. 378 (1920).
Where misconduct is known to counsel, counsel cannot await verdict and then complain. 52 H. 61, 469 P.2d 808 (1970).
Denial of motion for new trial is reviewable. 53 H. 440, 496 P.2d 4 (1972).
Party may move for new trial on ground verdict contrary to evidence, notwithstanding failure to move for directed verdict. 53 H. 440, 496 P.2d 4 (1972).
Appellate standard for granting new trial is that one party's evidence manifestly outweighs that of the other party. 53 H. 564, 498 P.2d 630 (1972).
New trial for prejudicial conduct of prosecutor, test is whether cumulative effect of prejudicial conduct overcomes presumption that curative remarks of court have rendered the prejudicial conduct harmless. 55 H. 127, 516 P.2d 336 (1973).
Test of a criminal conviction on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. 55 H. 127, 516 P.2d 336 (1973).
New trial based on newly discovered evidence, when granted. 56 H. 241, 534 P.2d 489 (1976).
Where amount of damages awarded by jury exceeds amount justified by evidence, it is no abuse of discretion for court to grant new trial. 57 H. 378, 557 P.2d 788 (1976).
Grant or denial of new trial is within trial court's discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. 60 H. 144, 587 P.2d 1210 (1978).
Where record evinced that evenly balanced evidence was submitted as to the cause of the hematoma, the area where plaintiff was treated by chiropractor, and when the hematoma first emerged, trial court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict in favor of chiropractor was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 104 H. 1, 84 P.3d 509 (2004).
Circuit court was not authorized to grant defendant's motion for a new trial; when an HRPP rule 33 motion for a new trial asks for a jury's guilty verdict to be set aside and for a new trial to allow the defendant to request a deferred acceptance of a guilty plea that circuit court is statutorily not authorized to enter, the cause is neither legal nor in the interest of justice. 10 H. App. 31, 859 P.2d 1380 (1993).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial; record provided substantial evidence to support jury verdict. 10 H. App. 298, 869 P.2d 1352 (1994).
Trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for new trial where it put great weight on its own factual finding regarding defendant, thereby usurping the rightful role and constitutional prerogative of the jury in weighing contradictory evidence and inferences, judging the credibility of witnesses, receiving expert instructions, and drawing the ultimate conclusion as to the facts. 99 H. 287 (App.), 54 P.3d 923 (2002).
Erroneous admission or rejection of evidence. 8 H. 247 (1891); 9 H. 505 (1894); 11 H. 69 (1897); 13 H. 218 (1900); 13 H. 723 (1902); 16 H. 29 (1904); 16 H. 69 (1904); 16 H. 123, 144 (1904); 16 H. 734 (1905); 17 H. 312, 323 (1906); 19 H. 496 (1909); 20 H. 245 (1910); 20 H. 724 (1911).
Misconduct. Of jury. 2 H. 155 (1859); 5 H. 662 (1886); 6 H. 326 (1882); 9 H. 318 (1893); 9 H. 604 (1895); 9 H. 622 (1895); 11 H. 322 (1898); 13 H. 218 (1900); 15 H. 139 (1903). Of attorney. 7 H. 104 (1887); 12 H. 92 (1899); 27 H. 399 (1923). By stranger; jury tampering discussed. 24 H. 193 (1918). See 32 H. 543 (1932); 33 H. 638 (1935); 33 H. 840 (1936); 34 H. 167 (1937); 34 H. 632 (1938); 35 H. 761 (1940); 36 H. 153 (1942); 37 H. 40 (1944). Separation of jury. 45 H. 457, 370 P.2d 468 (1962). Use of liquor by jury. 45 H. 457, 370 P.2d 468 (1962). Misconduct of judge. 36 H. 153 (1942).
Newly discovered evidence. 1 H. 54 (1851); 1 H. 519 (1856); 2 H. 155 (1859); 2 H. 165 (1859); 2 H. 309 (1860); 3 H. 356 (1872); 3 H. 623 (1875); 4 H. 450 (1882); 7 H. 365 (1888); 7 H. 379 (1888); 7 H. 676 (1889); 8 H. 271 (1891); 9 H. 27 (1893); 9 H. 548 (1894); 9 H. 553 (1894); 10 H. 446 (1896); 19 H. 380 (1909); 20 H. 195 (1910); 20 H. 724 (1911); 21 H. 710 (1913); 39 H. 393 (1952); 49 H. 672, 427 P.2d 94 (1967). But see 29 H. 340 (1926); 29 H. 560 (1927); 32 H. 628 (1933); 40 H. 534 (1954).
New trial, grounds for. 42 H. 630 (1958); 44 H. 134, 137-138, 351 P.2d 1089 (1960); 45 H. 457, 370 P.2d 468 (1962); 45 H. 478, 370 P.2d 739 (1962); 48 H. 22, 395 P.2d 365 (1964); 49 H. 314, 424 P.2d 107 (1966). See also 37 H. 57 (1945).
Review of award of damages. 42 H. 618 (1958); 42 H. 478 (1958); 44 H. 123, 131, 351 P.2d 1083 (1960); 44 H. 134, 351 P.2d 1089 (1960); 46 H. 112, 375 P.2d 229 (1962); 49 H. 42, 51, 410 P.2d 976 (1966); 49 H. 416, 424, 421 P.2d 289 (1966).
Cases prior to adoption of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure and Hawaii Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Amendments. Motion may not be amended after expiration of statutory period by inserting wholly new specification of error. 27 H. 177 (1923).
Costs. Party obtaining new trial may be required to pay costs. 17 H. 547 (1906).
Criminal cases. Circuit courts may grant new trials in criminal cases. 9 H. 548 (1894); 9 H. 553 (1894); 29 H. 459 (1926).
Decision in jury waived case. Failure of judge to find material fact in decision. 22 H. 414 (1915). Motion in jury waived case made before filing of written decision is premature. 22 H. 673 (1915). Trial court may grant new trial if decision against weight of evidence. 21 H. 551 (1913).
Excessive. 1 H. 139 (1852); 3 H. 740 (1876); 7 H. 82 (1887); 11 H. 453 (1898); 11 H. 767 (1899); 13 H. 232 (1901); 18 H. 481 (1907).
Involuntary nonsuit. Motion for new trial proper in case of. 16 H. 170 (1904).
Mistake or prejudice. 1 H. 248 (1854); 3 H. 88 (1868).
Notice. Notice of motion on ground other than that verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence need not be given at time verdict is rendered. 16 H. 170 (1904).
Refusal to submit to examination. 32 H. 543 (1932).
Surprise. 5 H. 294 (1885); 5 H. 632 (1886); 6 H. 181 (1876); 9 H. 27 (1893); 13 H. 515 (1901); 18 H. 577 (1908).
Time of filing. As to when motion may be filed. See 4 H. 450 (1882); 4 H. 601 (1883); 6 H. 226 (1879); 40 H. 534 (1954).
Verdict. Against evidence. 1 H. 139 (1852); 3 H. 88 (1868); 3 H. 118 (1869), questioned on other grounds 9 H. 548, 549 (1894); 3 H. 143 (1869); 3 H. 388 (1872); 3 H. 391 (1872); 7 H. 549 (1889). Against weight of evidence. 2 H. 155 (1859); 3 H. 40 (1867); 3 H. 465 (1873); 3 H. 526 (1874); 3 H. 589 (1875); 3 H. 755 (1877); 7 H. 293 (1888); 7 H. 397 (1888); 7 H. 590 (1889); 9 H. 438 (1894); 14 H. 301 (1902); 20 H. 426 (1911), explained 44 H. 134, 137, 351 P.2d 1089 (1960); 21 H. 551 (1913); 23 H. 74 (1915); 25 H. 521 (1920); 26 H. 538, 539 (1922). Question of whether verdict contrary to evidence may be raised on motion for new trial and not waived if not presented by motion for directed verdict. 24 H. 677 (1919). Where evidence capable of more than one inference, question of negligence must be left to jury and verdict cannot be disturbed. 27 H. 262 (1923). See 32 H. 865 (1933).