## Facts

- A gunman robbed an F & S Liquor Store in Hutchinson, Kansas, at about 7:00 p.m. on May 10, 1978, taking approximately $130 and fleeing toward a nearby motel.
- The store clerk, Stella Stewart, identified Ronald Quick as the robber, relying in part on distinctive facial moles.
- Richard Peterson, who knew Quick from prior employment, testified he saw Quick exit an orange Ford Pinto near the motel, walk toward the liquor store, then return hurriedly and reenter the car, which drove off quickly.
- Quick denied involvement and presented an alibi that he was at a friend’s home in Nickerson, Kansas, during the relevant time; multiple witnesses corroborated his presence there and described him arriving in a green Chevrolet.
- A jury convicted Quick of aggravated robbery, and he was sentenced to 5 years to life.
- After initially denying Quick’s motion for a new trial, the district court later reconsidered and granted a new trial based on concerns about the weight of the evidence and alleged juror misconduct.
- The State appealed the order granting a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial after a jury conviction based on the court’s view of the evidence and alleged juror misconduct.
2. What limits apply to a trial judge’s authority to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence in a criminal case.
3. What showing is required for alleged juror misconduct to justify a new trial.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the order granting a new trial and reinstated the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion because the verdict was supported by substantial evidence, and the record did not show prejudicial juror misconduct warranting a new trial.
- The court emphasized that resolving conflicts between eyewitness identification and alibi testimony is primarily the jury’s function.

## Legal Principles

- A motion for new trial is addressed to the trial court’s judicial discretion, but an appellate court may reverse where the ruling rests on untenable grounds or reasons.
- A trial judge may not set aside a guilty verdict merely because the judge would weigh credibility differently when the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.
- Alleged juror misconduct warrants a new trial only upon a showing of prejudice affecting the defendant’s right to a fair trial; irregularities without demonstrated prejudice are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Quick’s aggravated robbery conviction, ruling that the trial court exceeded the permissible bounds of discretion by overturning a jury verdict supported by substantial evidence without a prejudicial showing of juror misconduct.


State v. Quick, 226 Kan. 308, 597 P.2d 1108 (Kan. 1979)