What standard does an appellate court use when reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial?

An appellate court uses the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial. This standard recognizes that trial courts are best positioned to make decisions regarding the conduct of trials, including matters such as evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and overall case management.

In applying the abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court looks to see whether the trial court's decision was reasonable and justified under the circumstances. If the appellate court finds that the trial court's decision falls within a range of acceptable options, even if it may not have been the choice the appellate court would have made, it will typically uphold that decision. This reflects a level of deference to the trial court's judgment, acknowledging the trial court's first-hand experience with the case.

The other potential standards mentioned — de novo, preponderance of evidence, and clear and convincing evidence — do not apply in this context. De novo would imply a complete reevaluation of the evidence without deference to the lower court's findings, which is not the case for motions for new trials. Preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence are standards of proof applicable to the establishment of facts in trial proceedings, rather than standards for appellate review of trial