In Murphy v. State, 100 Md. App. 131, 640 A.2d 230 (1994), the defendant was convicted by the court after pleading not guilty on an agreed statement of facts. Post-conviction, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict, which the court denied. On appeal, the Court held that the court erred in denying the motion because the agreed statement of facts was legally insufficient to support the conviction. Id. at 136. In Murphy v. State, following his conviction for theft on an agreed statement of facts, the defendant requested the trial judge "to set aside the verdict" on the ground that the evidence was not legally sufficient to show that he had been guilty of theft, as opposed to being guilty of a bad check law violation. The trial judge denied the post-trial motion that we concluded was "apparently pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-331(b)." The Court reversed the trial judge, holding that it had been an abuse of discretion for him not to have granted the motion. The Court did not consider, and were not asked to consider, whether such a motion was even appropriate because it was based on the evidence produced at trial rather than upon a defect "on the face of the record," as was traditionally required for a Motion in Arrest of Judgment. The Murphy opinion, however, should not be construed as an expansion of what may be considered under Rule 4-331(b) because it was never called upon to give any thought to that admittedly subtle nuance of law.