Standards of Review on Appeal

Lawyers.com

Email this article Print this page

Either party in a civil lawsuit can challenge the trial court's final judgment by filing an appeal with the appellate court. The party filing the appeal is called the appellant, and the other party is called the appellee. The winning party might challenge the judgment if he/she thinks the amount of damages awarded in the case was insufficient. The losing party might challenge the judgment if he/she thinks there was not enough evidence to enter a judgment against him/her. The appellant has the burden of persuading the appellate court that the trial court committed a procedural error or an error in interpreting or applying the law. Standards of review are the principles used by the appellate court in reviewing the trial court's judgment.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

The appellate court reviews the trial court's judgment to determine whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to support the judgment. The appellate court examines the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind that the plaintiff (the person suing) has or has not proved his/her case by a preponderance of the evidence. For example, in an appeal from a termination of parental rights, the standard of review is whether, after looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the natural parent's right to custody should be terminated. On appeal, the reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility (believability) of witnesses. Instead, the appellate court defers to the trial court's fact finding and affirms the judgment unless the appellate standard is not met.

Manifest Weight of the Evidence

Generally, the appellate court will not reverse a judgment as against the weight of the evidence if there is any competent, credible evidence in the case. The appellate court has the duty to weigh the evidence and determine whether the findings of the trial court were so against the weight of the evidence as to require a reversal and a retrial. In order to reverse, the reviewing court must conclude, after examining all the evidence, that the judgment is unsupported by the manifest weight of the evidence. The reviewing court can reverse the judgment only when the verdict is so manifestly contrary to the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence as to produce a violation of substantial justice.

Abuse of Discretion

A judicial abuse of discretion occurs when the trial judge acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable way that results in unfairly denying a litigant a substantial right or causes an unjust result. Various types of decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. For example, the trial court's decision to award or deny attorney fees in a case will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. In dividing marital debt, the trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining how and in what manner the debt should be divided. The trial court's division of marital debt will not be disturbed on appeal, absent a clear showing of an abuse of the trial court's discretion.

Plain Error

The plain error standard of review permits the appellate court to review errors that were not objected to at trial if such errors would result in a miscarriage of justice or seriously affect the basic fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Plain error is limited to error that is evident, obvious, and clear. To establish plain error due to the erroneous introduction of evidence, there must be apparent prejudice to the criminal defendant. Prejudice is not considered apparent when there is ample other evidence to support the conviction. The plain error rule is applied only in exceptional circumstances.

Harmless Error

The appellate court will not overturn a judgment on the basis of any error that is harmless. A harmless error is an insignificant error that does not change the outcome of the case. For example, the introduction of improper evidence that goes to motive is harmless error in a criminal case where there is a conviction for an offense requiring no motive.

Doctrine of Invited Error

Under the doctrine of invited error, the appellate court will not permit a litigant to take advantage of an error that was invited or induced by that litigant. For example, a party may not request a jury instruction and then later complain on appeal that the requested instruction was given. Such action would constitute invited error.

De Novo

De novo, which means anew or over again, review refers to the appellate court's authority to review the trial court's conclusions on questions of the application, interpretation, and construction of law. Generally, the proper standard of review for employee benefit decisions, such as the denial of benefit claims, is de novo. Also, where the appellate court undertakes judicial review of compulsory arbitration proceedings that were required by statute, the reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of the interpretation and application of the law by the arbitrators.

Related Resources on lawyers.com

- Attorney Client Relationship articles and information
- Find an attorney by area of law
- Community Message Boards for more help