WYOMING COURT RULES

94 that discretion. King v. State, 780 P.2d 943, 1989 Wyo. LEXIS 202 (Wyo. 1989). Granting a motion for a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless the appellant affirma- tively demonstrates an abuse of discretion. Warren v. State, 809 P.2d 788, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 53 (Wyo. 1991). Standard of review. — In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion in denying a motion for a new trial, the Su- preme Court will look to the facts and circum- stances of each individual case. The question is not whether the district court would have been justified in granting a new trial but, rather, whether it was error to not grant a new trial. King v. State, 780 P.2d 943, 1989 Wyo. LEXIS 202 (Wyo. 1989). Appellate review facilitated by district court statement. — This rule does not require the district court to specifically state its reasons for denying the motion. However, appellate review is facilitated by a statement of the grounds for denial. King v. State, 780 P.2d 943, 1989 Wyo. LEXIS 202 (Wyo. 1989). Where a motion based on recanting tes- timony is refused by the trial court, the Supreme Court ordinarily will be bound by that decision. Flaim v. State, 488 P.2d 153, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 245 (Wyo. 1971); Jones v. State, 568 P.2d 837, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 279 (Wyo. 1977). Prior cases not sole determinant of abuse of discretion. — Because the facts and circumstances of each case are different, prior cases alone may not be relied upon as a binding precedent in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion in denying a motion for continuance or a motion for a new trial. Siegert v. State, 634 P.2d 323, 1981 Wyo. LEXIS 373 (Wyo. 1981). Within discretion of judge to dispose of motion without hearing. — There is no law which requires a hearing on a motion for new trial unless the motion and its supporting pa- pers require confirmation. The law is clear that a motion may be disposed of without a hearing and it is within the sound discretion of the district judge to do so. Hopkinson v. State, 679 P.2d 1008, 1984 Wyo. LEXIS 273 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S. Ct. 228, 83 L. Ed. 2d 157, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 360 (U.S. 1984). Judge hearing motion may agree with verdict. — The mere fact that a judge has expressed agreement with the jury’s verdict does not disqualify him from hearing a motion for new trial, though it may result in a situation where he should not sit on a new trial if one is