Appellate Division Addresses Rules Governing Motion For New Trial

Attorneys who practice in New Jersey’s state courts should take heed of a recent Appellate Division case -- Eunhyuk Do v. Hyoungsuk Kang, Docket No. A-5966-13T3 (App. Div. Sept. 28, 2016) – addressing the the rules governing motions for a new trial. 

Background and Motion for New Trial

In May 2014, a New Jersey trial court jury ruled unanimously against Eunhyuk Do and Min Hee Kim (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), finding the Plaintiffs had not sustained permanent injury as a result of a car accident.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial 21 days after the verdict was rendered claiming, among other things, that the evidence did not support the verdict and that the judge’s inappropriate facial expressions tainted the jury’s verdict.  The trial judge found the motion untimely under Rule 4:49-1(b), and also denied the motion on its merits. 

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Failure to Follow Procedural Rules

At the outset, the Appellate Division (“the Court”) noted that Plaintiffs failed to supply the Court with the complete trial transcript as required by Rule 2:5-3(a).  Although the Court held it could affirm the trial court’s ruling or dismiss the appeal on that basis alone, it chose to proceed relying upon the thorough opinions written by the trial judge.  The Court noted that it could also affirm the trial court’s decision based on the failure to file the motion for new trial in a timely fashion.  As the Court explained, the twenty-day time limit set by Rule 4:49(1)(b) for filing a motion for a new trial “is one of the few time restrictions that a court may not relax, even if there are extenuating circumstances.” 

Failure to Show a “Miscarriage of Justice Under the Law”

Despite finding it could dismiss the case on two different procedural bases, the Court nonetheless opted to examine the merits of the motion.  Rule 4:49-1(a) provides that a trial judge considering a motion for a new trial “shall grant the motion if, having given due regard to the opportunity of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, it clearly and convincingly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law.”  As the Court explained, this standard applies to both Plaintiffs’ contention that the verdict went against the weight of the evidence and Plaintiffs’ arguments that the trial judge tainted the verdict.  Appellate courts reviewing motions for new trial apply the same standard, but must “defer to the trial court's ‘feel of the case’ derived from the judge's personal observations of the witnesses' testimony during the trial and other intangible factors that cannot be duplicated by or extracted from the examination of the transcribed record” (internal citations removed). 

Applying this standard, the Court found ample evidence in support of the jury’s verdict.  The Court held “a jury verdict is impregnable unless so distorted and wrong, in the objective and articulated view of a judge, as to manifest with utmost certainty a plain miscarriage of justice” (internal citations removed).  Under this framework, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that the jury’s verdict represented a miscarriage of justice as would satisfy this stringent standard and denied the appeal as to that argument.

Turning to the allegation that the judge’s facial expressions and gestures tainted the ruling, the Court explained that “(i)t is well recognized that a trial judge's official expressions of displeasure or disapproval may convey to the jury the belief that defense counsel was somehow acting improperly, disrespectfully, or deceptively” (internal citations removed).  Reviewing the limited record before it, the Court found Plaintiffs’ claim lacked merit and that the evidence did not support a finding that the judge departed from proper standards of conduct.  The Court similarly dismissed the Plaintiffs’ contention that the judge erred in her rulings regarding voir dire and the admission of expert testimony.

Lessons from the Ruling

The Eunhyuk Do case reminds practitioners and litigants that compliance with the New Jersey Court rules is particularly critical when filing a Motion for New Trial.  Here, both the failure to file a timely motion and the failure to provide a proper record could have, independently, resulted in a ruling against the Eunhyuk Do Plaintiffs.