In People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, a husband and wife were found guilty of a variety crimes after their dogs attacked and killed their neighbor. (Id. at p. 142.) The trial court denied the husband's motion for a new trial, but granted the wife's motion in regard to her conviction for second degree murder--the murder conviction was based upon a theory of implied malice. (Ibid.) The trial court reasoned that the motion for a new trial should be granted in regard to the murder conviction because the evidence reflected that the wife lacked awareness that there was a high probability her conduct would cause the death of another person. (Ibid.) The trial court also commented, "A great troubling feature of the case" was that the husband had never been charged with murder, but the wife was convicted of murder. (Id. at pp. 150-151.) Before granting the motion, the trial court remarked, "'The equal administration of justice is an important feature in any criminal court. That played a role as well.'" (Id. at p. 151.) The appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial. (Knoller, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 142.) The appellate court directed the trial court to reconsider the motion "in light of the Court of Appeal's holding that implied malice can be based simply on a defendant's conscious disregard of the risk of serious bodily injury to another." (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court accepted the wife's petition for review. One of the issues considered by our high court was whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for a new trial due to the evidence being contrary to the verdict ( 1181, subd. (6)). (Knoller, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 142.) The Supreme Court concluded that "the trial court applied an erroneous definition of implied malice in granting the wife a new trial on the second degree murder charge." (Id. at p. 157.) Further, our Supreme Court held that charging the wife with murder, but not the husband, was "a permissible exercise of prosecutorial discretion, not grounds for a new trial." (Id. at p. 158.)