LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Findings of Fact – Evaluation of Evidence – Duty of Appellate Court

If the trial court clearly evaluated the evidence and appraised the facts, the appellate court should not substitute its own views. The trial court has the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses. The appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are perverse or unsupported. The principle prevents appellate courts from re-hearing cases as if they were trial courts. The appellate court may intervene only if the trial court failed to evaluate evidence properly or drew wrong inferences. The mere possibility of a different conclusion is insufficient. The trial court’s evaluation must be manifestly wrong to justify interference. The principle respects the trial court’s primary role in fact-finding. The appellate court’s duty is to correct errors of law, not re-evaluate credibility.