When a verdict has been rendered or a finding made against the defendant, the court may, upon his application, grant a new trial, in the following cases only:
1.When the trial has been had in his absence except in cases where the trial may lawfully proceed in his absence;
2.When the jury has received any evidence out of court, other than that resulting from a view of the premises, or of personal property;
3.When the jury has separated without leave of the court after retiring to deliberate upon their verdict, or been guilty of any misconduct by which a fair and due consideration of the case has been prevented;
4.When the verdict has been decided by lot, or by any means other than a fair expression of opinion on the part of all the jurors;
5.When the court has misdirected the jury in a matter of law, or has erred in the decision of any question of law arising during the course of the trial, and when the district attorney or other counsel prosecuting the case has been guilty of prejudicial misconduct during the trial thereof before a jury;
6.When the verdict or finding is contrary to law or evidence, but if the evidence shows the defendant to be not guilty of the degree of the crime of which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, or of a lesser crime included therein, the court may modify the verdict, finding or judgment accordingly without granting or ordering a new trial, and this power shall extend to any court to which the cause may be appealed;
7.When the verdict or finding is contrary to law or evidence, but in any case wherein authority is vested by statute in the trial court or jury to recommend or determine as a part of its verdict or finding the punishment to be imposed, the court may modify such verdict or finding by imposing the lesser punishment without granting or ordering a new trial, and this power shall extend to any court to which the case may be appealed;
8.When new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, and which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial. When a motion for a new trial is made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce at the hearing, in support thereof, the affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, and if time is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits, the court may postpone the hearing of the motion for such length of time as, under all circumstances of the case, may seem reasonable.
9.When the right to a phonographic report has not been waived, and when it is not possible to have a phonographic report of the trial transcribed by a stenographic reporter as provided by law or by rule because of the death or disability of a reporter who participated as a stenographic reporter at the trial or because of the loss or destruction, in whole or in substantial part, of the notes of such reporter, the trial court or a judge, thereof, or the reviewing court shall have power to set aside and vacate the judgment, order or decree from which an appeal has been taken or is to be taken and to order a new trial of the action or proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
306
cases (
32 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case:
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971).
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971).
· cites it 6× “A jury determination to impose a death sentence may be set aside by the judge presiding at the trial, Cal. Penal Code § 1181 (7) (1970), construed in People v.”
People v. Partida, 122 P.3d 765 (Cal. 2005).
· cites it 2× “(Pen.Code, § 1181, subd. 5 [trial court has authority to grant a new trial based on error "in the decision of any *659 question of law arising during the course of the trial"].”
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).
· cites it 2× “[11] Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1181(8) (West 1985) (no time limit); Colo.”
People v. Steven B., 598 P.2d 480 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 6× “[8] The two provisions are substantially identical. Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 9 provides: "9.”
Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Cal.Penal Code § 1181(6). [4] The only difference between an arson conviction under § 451(b) and a conviction under § 451(c) is whether the burned structure was inhabited.”
People v. Hill, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 947 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Given the prosecution's failure to perfect its objection to evidence of the jurors' subjective mental processes, this court can only assume both objective and subjective evidence were properly before the trial court at the *45 time of its ruling. At oral argument on appeal, the…”
People v. Cox, 809 P.2d 351 (Cal. 1991).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 1181, subd. 2.)" ( People v.”
People v. Miranda-Guerrero, 519 P.3d 1004 (Cal. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” (Pen. Code, § 1181, subd. 8.) “ ‘ “To grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, the evidence must make a different result probable on retrial.”
People v. Serrato, 512 P.2d 289 (Cal. 1973).
· cites it 4× “[2] Penal Code section 1181, which governs the power of the trial court in ruling on a motion for a new trial, authorizes the trial court to modify the verdict to a lesser degree of the crime found by the jury, or to a lesser crime included therein.”
People v. Flinner, 476 P.3d 240 (Cal. 2020).
“” There had been “isolated violations” by the jurors of the court’s admonitions, the court concluded, but none of a nature that “singly or in combination” substantially prejudiced the trial’s fairness.”
People v. Pierce, 595 P.2d 91 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Also according to Case, Seymour queried the adequacy of the police sketch of the crime scene and said that he and other jurors wanted to see the room where the murder took place; Case could not recall his answer, and Seymour stated he did not remember asking the question.”
People v. Ortega, 968 P.2d 48 (Cal. 1998).
· cites it 2× “(Pen.Code, § 1181, subd. 6.) (4) The defendant may not be convicted of both A and B; the lesser conviction is subject to vacation by the trial court or reversal on appeal.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 1181(4) — 1 case
— Cal. Penal Code § 1181(6) — 4 cases
Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 2010).
“Cal.Penal Code § 1181(6). [4] The only difference between an arson conviction under § 451(b) and a conviction under § 451(c) is whether the burned structure was inhabited.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 1181(8) — 3 cases
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).
“[11] Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 1181(8) (West 1985) (no time limit); Colo.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.