Pinkney v. State

The precise question presented in this case is whether the lower court erred by not applying the proper test as to the sufficiency of the evidence in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. The question requires consider ation of basic matters with respect to a motion for a new trial by a defendant who stands convicted of a criminal offense: (1) his right to have the trial court entertain a motion for a new trial; (2) the reasons which may be assigned for the motion; (3) his right to appeal a denial of the motion and the scope of the appellate review.

THE RIGHT TO A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

A…