Cited by

Any misconduct must have “actually influenced the verdict,” or the newly discovered evidence “would probably change the result of the litigation,” Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., Inc., (citation omitted).

–29, ¶¶ 5–22 (App. 2000) (wrongfully withholding disclosure was misconduct justifying grant of a new trial); Varco, Inc. v. UNS Elec., Inc., ¶¶ 14–19 (App. 2017) (counsel engaged in misconduct by repeatedly violating court’s orders on motions in limine); (misconduct includes counsel improperly vouching for witness’s credibility).

sections 12-201.21(A)(1) and –2101(A)(5)(a)(2024).1 DISCUSSION ¶14 “The grant or denial of a motion for new trial on grounds of misconduct is a matter within the trial judge’s discretion.”

The superior court is in the best position to determine whether misconduct by a party occurred and “materially affected the rights of the aggrieved party.”

¶23 To support her asserted presumption-of-prejudice standard when “deliberate or intentional misconduct” makes “ascertaining prejudice practically impossible,”

Sandretto, 234 Ariz. at 355, ¶ 8.

Specifically, P.2d 1340 (1997), given that the case was not close, no motion for mistrial was filed, and the court never found that any trial misconduct was serious, knowing, and deliberate, and disregarded its curative instruction to the jury.

at ¶¶ 51-52 (noting trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the misconduct materially influenced the decision) ( and Anderson Aviation, 19 Ariz. App. at 429).

The trial judge is in the best position to “decide whether the misconduct materially affected the rights of the aggrieved party.” , Grant, 133 Ariz. at 454 , 652 P.2d at 527 .

We will reverse if GM engaged in misconduct, the misconduct materially affected Brethauer’s rights, and it is probable the misconduct “actually influenced the verdict.”

Id.; , (citation omitted) (“[Prejudice will be found when there has been significant misconduct affecting the essential rights of a litigant and when the very nature of the misconduct makes it impossible to determine the extent of prejudice.”).