What is the test for determining whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason when making conclusions based on the facts?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Huffman v. State, D067816 (Cal. App. 2016):
is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court." (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478-479.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff has been successful in their claim that the trial court considered some facts but not other facts? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant claims the trial court made an impermissible dual use of a fact to support both an enhancement and an aggravating factor in his conviction for assault, what is the test for determining whether the sentence should be increased or reduced? (California, United States of America)
What is the appellate court's role in determining whether a defendant satisfied his burden of producing clear and convincing evidence in the trial court? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a defendant has a right to a jury determination based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
When a finding of fact is challenged on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have any power to substitute its conclusions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Does a quasi-judicial review of the evidence presented to the trial court to determine whether any triable issues of fact were presented? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
