Also known as: greater weight of evidence · preponderance of the evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of proof requiring the party bearing the burden to persuade the factfinder that a fact is more likely true than not. This standard governs most civil claims and affirmative defenses.
Hannah petitions to bar Catherine from inheriting shares under Dorothy's will after the plane crash. The probate court weighs the pre-flight modifications, Catherine's leadership comments, and weather conditions. Finding Catherine responsible for the killing by a greater weight of the evidence, the court denies her the devise.
The prosecution offers Steve's earlier nonprofit payments to prove motive and absence of mistake in the current embezzlement case. The court admits the evidence after confirming sufficient facts for the jury to find the prior acts occurred under Rule 104(b) and that their probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Helen and Ruby each claim the training facility shares under the coach's will. The probate court reviews public statements, facility ownership history, and private conversations. Determining the coach's intention by a greater weight of the evidence, the court awards the shares to Helen.
After conviction, the defendant challenges whether the evidence supports the verdict. The reviewing court asks whether any rational trier of fact could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than the greater weight of the evidence used in civil cases.
Charged with second-degree murder, the defendant claims extreme emotional disturbance to reduce the offense. The state requires the defendant to prove this mitigating circumstance by a greater weight of the evidence without shifting the burden on any element of the crime.
The state seeks to commit Addington indefinitely. The trial court instructs the jury on the greater weight of the evidence standard. The Supreme Court holds that due process requires the higher clear and convincing evidence standard instead.
The party must persuade the factfinder that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. This is the ordinary civil standard of proof.
Greater weight requires only that a fact be more likely true than not. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the stricter criminal standard that demands moral certainty of guilt.
It is insufficient in certain civil proceedings that threaten fundamental liberty interests, such as termination of parental rights or indefinite civil commitment, where clear and convincing evidence is required.
Yes. A final criminal conviction for felonious and intentional killing conclusively establishes slayer status in a subsequent civil proceeding applying the greater weight standard.
No. The trial court need not find the prior act proved by a greater weight of the evidence. Admission turns on whether the jury could reasonably find the act occurred under Rule 104(b) and whether its probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
…that "[a]ny determination at the conclusion of [an adjudicatory] hearing that a [juvenile] did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence."[^maj-2] During a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of 18 months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment…