So I was always taught appellate courts don't decide facts.. they only rule on law, such as if the trial court judge sustained a hearsay objection erroneously or gave a bad jury instruction. In a case I read for today, the defendant, who lost at trial, appealed that there was "insufficient evidence" for the jury to reach the verdict the jury came to. Isn't this not a matter of law?
Thought you can't appeal just because you dont like the outcome... I thought you needed a legal reason, pointing to something that went wrong, legally, in the trial.
Someone help?
Question RE: Appellate Court Review Standard Forum
-
clshopeful
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:15 pm
-
rpupkin
- Posts: 5653
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm
-
encore1101
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am
Re: Question RE: Appellate Court Review Standard
Generally, a litigant cannot introduce new facts on appeal that was not produced on the record below. The appellate court is not a fact-finding court. For example, a defendant could not submit an affidavit of an alibi witness on direct appeal if that affidavit was not in the record of the lower proceedings.
When a defendant is alleging that there are "insufficient facts," he is not asking the appellate court to resolve any factual determinations. He is saying that the evidence was either legally insufficient (aka summary judgment) -- the evidence, even if true in the appellee's favor, did not satisfy every element of the claim. Or, he could also be claiming that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and a directed verdict or JNOV should have been granted.
So for example, let's say that a defendant is convicted of assaulting another. In New York, third-degree assault has the following elements:
1. intent to cause physical injury;
2. causes physical injury;
3. to another person.
At trial, the evidence shows that defendant was angry and shouting at another individual (thus allowing an inference of intent). While angry, he threw a rock at the other individual. Based on this evidence, he was found guilty of third-degree assault. On appeal, the defendant could (successfully) claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. Because there was no evidence of injury to the other person, the prosecution failed to prove an element of the crime charged, and so even viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the non-moving party (i.e. the prosecution), they failed to satisfy every element.
Weight of the evidence analysis is a little trickier. Some appellate courts are permitted to weight the probative strengths of the evidence, but again, they are not permitted to consider new facts that are not in the record. They also give great deference to the original fact-finder, and generally only stray away from the original fact-finder's determinations when the testimony is "manifestly impossible." Let's say in the above example, the victim testified on the prosecution's behalf. He testified that, as a result of the rock striking him, he was knocked unconscious, suffered from extreme pain in the area where he was struck when he woke up, and had dizzy spells for several months following the accident. Thus, the prosecution satisfied every element of assault, and a legal sufficiency challenge on appeal would not be successful.
Let's say that the defendant denied throwing the rock, but the victim testified that he saw the defendant throwing the rock. That's a credibility question. At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted the defendant, thus implying that the jury credited the victim's testimony. The appellate court will generally defer to the jury's credibility determination, and so the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
However, let's say the victim admitted that, immediately after the incident, he went snowboarding, engaged in extreme sports like rock climbing and deep sea snorkeling, went to heavy metal concerts and participated in mosh pits, and won a UFC championship. Nevertheless, the jury still convicted the defendant. Here, the jury's credibility determination was unreasonable, as the victim's testimony of pain and blacking out was directly contradicted by his behavior afterwards. An appellate court could reverse this judgment, since the judgment was against the probative weight of the evidence.
The legal sufficiency/summary judgment claim is a straightforward legal claim. The verdict was legally insufficient because not every element of the claim was satisfied.
The weight of the evidence is also a legal question, because it is saying that, as a matter of law, the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court is not resolving/determining new facts. it is determining whether the judgment was consistent with the credible evidence.
HTH.
When a defendant is alleging that there are "insufficient facts," he is not asking the appellate court to resolve any factual determinations. He is saying that the evidence was either legally insufficient (aka summary judgment) -- the evidence, even if true in the appellee's favor, did not satisfy every element of the claim. Or, he could also be claiming that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and a directed verdict or JNOV should have been granted.
So for example, let's say that a defendant is convicted of assaulting another. In New York, third-degree assault has the following elements:
1. intent to cause physical injury;
2. causes physical injury;
3. to another person.
At trial, the evidence shows that defendant was angry and shouting at another individual (thus allowing an inference of intent). While angry, he threw a rock at the other individual. Based on this evidence, he was found guilty of third-degree assault. On appeal, the defendant could (successfully) claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. Because there was no evidence of injury to the other person, the prosecution failed to prove an element of the crime charged, and so even viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the non-moving party (i.e. the prosecution), they failed to satisfy every element.
Weight of the evidence analysis is a little trickier. Some appellate courts are permitted to weight the probative strengths of the evidence, but again, they are not permitted to consider new facts that are not in the record. They also give great deference to the original fact-finder, and generally only stray away from the original fact-finder's determinations when the testimony is "manifestly impossible." Let's say in the above example, the victim testified on the prosecution's behalf. He testified that, as a result of the rock striking him, he was knocked unconscious, suffered from extreme pain in the area where he was struck when he woke up, and had dizzy spells for several months following the accident. Thus, the prosecution satisfied every element of assault, and a legal sufficiency challenge on appeal would not be successful.
Let's say that the defendant denied throwing the rock, but the victim testified that he saw the defendant throwing the rock. That's a credibility question. At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted the defendant, thus implying that the jury credited the victim's testimony. The appellate court will generally defer to the jury's credibility determination, and so the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
However, let's say the victim admitted that, immediately after the incident, he went snowboarding, engaged in extreme sports like rock climbing and deep sea snorkeling, went to heavy metal concerts and participated in mosh pits, and won a UFC championship. Nevertheless, the jury still convicted the defendant. Here, the jury's credibility determination was unreasonable, as the victim's testimony of pain and blacking out was directly contradicted by his behavior afterwards. An appellate court could reverse this judgment, since the judgment was against the probative weight of the evidence.
The legal sufficiency/summary judgment claim is a straightforward legal claim. The verdict was legally insufficient because not every element of the claim was satisfied.
The weight of the evidence is also a legal question, because it is saying that, as a matter of law, the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court is not resolving/determining new facts. it is determining whether the judgment was consistent with the credible evidence.
HTH.
