Cited by

While we review claims of insufficient evidence de novo, ¶ 15 (2011), we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt," ¶ 22 (2007); ¶ 28 (2017) ("The appellate court does not sit as the 'fourteenth' juror.

¶ 8 (2017) ( ¶ 14 (2017)); (noting trial judges have "a special perspective of the relationship between the evidence and the verdict which cannot be recreated by a reviewing court from the printed record").

DISCUSSION ¶10 We review the superior court’s decision to grant a new trial for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (2017), but review constitutional questions de novo, ¶ 4 (App. 2010).

We review the denial of a new trial for a clear and manifest abuse of discretion, “recognizing [the superior court] ha[s] substantial latitude in deciding whether to upset the [jury’s] verdict.” § 12 (1998)

But “[t]he credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.” Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000); ¶ 19 (2017).

“We review a trial court’s decision to grant a new trial for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 10 (2017).

In considering a motion for a new trial, the superior court “must respect the role of the jury and the integrity of the jury trial system.” ¶ 19 (2017) (citing Cal X–Tra v. W.V.S.V.

According to Conchola, the court should have weighed the evidence and made credibility determinations to consider whether the guilty verdict reflected “substantial justice.” ¶ 21 (2017) (“The judge may weigh the evidence, make 2 Conchola contends we review the court’s order denying cross- examination of the case agent for an abuse of discretion.

¶12 “It is primarily the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and to find the facts.” ¶ 19 (2017); accord Est. of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., ¶ 12 (2000) (“The credibility of a witness’ testimony and the weight it should be given are issues particularly within the province of the jury.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

4 BOTTOMLEE v. STATE, et al. Opinion of the Court respond reasonably to emergency calls)

-50, ¶¶ 14-15, 17 (2017) (citation omitted).

¶28 (Ariz. 2017) (“The appellate court does not sit as the ‘fourteenth’ juror.”).

¶13 On appeal, we defer to the jury’s factual findings and “will not set aside the verdict unless no evidence supports it.” ¶ 15 (2017).

¶ 28 (2017) (“The appellate court’s role is not to weigh the evidence.”); Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (“Mother is in essence asking us to reweigh the evidence presented to the juvenile court.

A trial court also abuses its discretion “when the record lacks substantial evidence to support the court’s finding.” Varco, Inc. v. UNS Elec., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2017) (-03, ¶ 12 (App. 2009)); ¶ 26 (2017) (“The appellate court’s role is to oversee the granting of new trials and to ensure that the exercise of a trial court’s broad discretion has a legal, rather than an arbitrary, basis.” (citing Estabrook v. J.C.

¶¶ 11-12 (2017); ¶ 15 (2012) (explaining the trial judge “has broad discretion to find the verdict inconsistent with the evidence and grant a new trial”).

Rule 59(f)(1)(A).1 As Soto held, the court thereby “plays a role akin to a ‘thirteenth juror’ (a ninth juror in a civil case)”2 and serves the “indispensable function” of acting as “the primary buffer against unjust verdicts.” 242 Ariz. at 478, ¶ 8 (citation omitted); (discussing consideration of motions for new trial by the superior court and on appeal).

“The appellate court’s role is not to weigh the evidence.” ¶ 28 (2017); see also Dominique M., 240 Ariz. at 98 ¶ 9 (“Mother is in essence asking us to reweigh the evidence presented to the juvenile court.