LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Appeal Against Conviction — Standard of Review — Findings of Fact
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An appellate court will not ordinarily reverse findings of fact unless there was no evidence to support them or the verdict is unreasonable considering the primary facts and inferences drawn.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Isibor v. State (2002) NLC-2462001(SC) at p. 14; Paras D–E.
"An appellate court will not ordinarily reverse the findings of a trial court unless there was no evidence to support such finding or conclusion of the trial court. An appellate court may also reverse the verdict of the trial court if it considers that it is unreasonable in the light of its knowledge both of the primary facts found by the trial court and of the inferences which the trial court drew from the primary facts."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court findings of fact. Reversal requires: (1) no evidence to support the finding; or (2) the verdict is unreasonable given the primary facts and inferences. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. The principle respects the trial court’s advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses. The appellate court may review inferences drawn from primary facts. Unreasonableness means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion. The rule applies to both criminal and civil appeals. The court will not substitute its own view for the trial court’s. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases. The appellant must show manifest error.