Robert King was convicted of incest involving his niece after a jury heard evidence of the family relationship and the alleged offense. The trial court denied King’s motion for new trial, treating his challenge as a claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to establish both the incest offense and the required consanguinity, and that DNA evidence was not necessary where other evidence established the blood relationship. But the court also held that King had properly invoked the trial court’s separate discretionary authority to act as a thirteenth juror and weigh the evidence under the general grounds for a new trial. Because the trial court incorrectly stated that King had not raised that issue and therefore never exercised the required discretion, the appellate court could not affirm on a presumption that the discretion had been exercised. It affirmed the conviction, vacated the new-trial order, and remanded for that limited consideration.