LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Duty of Appellate Court – Determination of Fundamental Questions Not Considered by Trial Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
If the fundamental relevant questions not considered by the trial judge are capable of being determined on the basis of admitted facts or documentary evidence before the lower court and do not depend on credibility of witnesses, the appellate court not only has power but is under a duty to determine such relevant questions.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"If the fundamental relevant questions not considered by the trial Judge are capable of being determined on the basis of admitted facts or documentary evidence before the lower court and do not depend on credibility of witnesses, the appellate court not only has power but is under a duty to determine such relevant questions."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts can and must decide fundamental issues overlooked by trial courts if: (1) the issues are fundamental and relevant; (2) they can be determined from admitted facts or documentary evidence; (3) they don’t depend on witness credibility assessment. This isn’t merely permissive (“has power”)—it’s mandatory (“is under a duty”). The rationale: fundamental issues shouldn’t be ignored requiring remittal when appellate courts can decide them; parties deserve resolution of all fundamental issues; and remittal wastes time and resources when decision is possible on existing record. “Fundamental” means essential to case resolution. “Admitted facts” means undisputed facts. “Documentary evidence” means written evidence in the record. “Don’t depend on credibility” means no need to assess witness demeanor or resolve conflicting testimony. This exception to normal appellate restraint (not deciding unraised issues) serves: judicial efficiency, complete justice, and avoiding remittal when unnecessary. However, if credibility assessment is needed, remittal may be necessary as appellate courts lack trial courts’ advantages in assessing witnesses.