Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

In re Burden of Proof v. Standard of Review
March 30, 2022

A Florida appellate court recently wrote to reiterate the difference between (1) the evidentiary burden of proof for a party in the trial court and (2) the appellate standard of review. The distinction was dispositive of the appellant's argument on appeal, where she sought reversal of the trial court's order denying her an injunction for protection against sexual violence.

The court explained that the appellant's argument "conflates the burden of evidentiary proof in the trial court proceedings with the legal requirement that the trial court's findings of fact shall be sustained by an appellate court if supported by competent, substantial evidence." Quoting Black's Law Dictionary, the court explained that "[a] 'burden of proof' is 'a party's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge."

In the case at issue, the burden of proof in the trial court was a preponderance of the evidence, which the trial court found the appellant failed to meet. Competent, substantial evidence on appellate review, on the other hand, is merely the "existence of some evidence (quantity) as to each essential element and as to the legality and admissibility of that evidence." In short, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence; they simply look to see if there is some admissible evidence to support the trial court's ruling.

The appellate court concluded that because there was directly conflicting evidence by equally credible witnesses on the critical issues in the trial court - in other words, there was some admissible evidence to support the trial court's ruling - the trial court correctly found the appellant "did not meet her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that sexual violence had occurred." Therefore, it affirmed.

Tips:

  • As the appellant, be careful to understand the appellate standard of review, and frame the argument to demonstrate error(s) that will satisfy that standard of review.
Authored By
Image: Sylvia H. Walbolt
Sylvia H. Walbolt
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.