LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Evaluation of Evidence – Limited Role of Appellate Court in Disturbing Findings of Fact
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Unless a finding of fact is not supported by evidence, is perverse, or is based on evidence not legally admissible, the finding will not be disturbed by the appellate court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Unless a finding of fact is not supported by evidence or is perverse or based on evidence not legally admissible the finding will not be disturbed by the appellate court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Appellate courts defer to trial court factual findings except in three circumstances: (1) No evidentiary support—findings made without any evidence; (2) Perversity—findings no reasonable tribunal could reach on the evidence; (3) Inadmissible evidence—findings based on evidence that should have been excluded. This deference reflects trial courts’ advantages: observing witnesses, assessing demeanor, and experiencing the case firsthand. Appellate review from written records lacks these advantages. The three exceptions ensure basic evidentiary and logical standards are met while preventing appellate courts from becoming substitute fact-finders. “Perversity” sets a high bar—not mere disagreement but findings defying logic. This framework maintains proper division between trial fact-finding and appellate review, promoting finality while correcting fundamental errors.