Also known as: sufficient evidences · sufficiency of the evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence that permits a reasonable factfinder to conclude that a required fact or element has been established. The standard measures whether the proof crosses the threshold needed to support a finding or to survive a motion testing legal sufficiency.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the defendant with only a brief statement that the plaintiff had failed to carry its burden. The plaintiff appealed and argued that the sparse findings lacked evidentiary support. The court of appeals permitted the challenge even though the plaintiff had not requested findings or objected before judgment.
The government offered evidence that the defendant had previously diverted restricted funds through invoices submitted to a board. The defense objected that the evidence was propensity proof. The trial court admitted the evidence after finding that a jury could reasonably conclude the prior act occurred and that its probative value on intent and plan was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
The prosecution introduced testimony and documents showing that the defendant had knowingly possessed a controlled substance. The defense moved for acquittal at the close of the government's case, arguing that the presumption of innocence had not been overcome. The court denied the motion because the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
After a guilty plea, the prosecution sought an enhanced sentence based on a biased-purpose finding. The defendant objected that the enhancement required proof to a jury. The court held that the facts supporting the enhancement must be found by the jury because they increased the maximum penalty.
A grand jury investigating drug trafficking subpoenaed a reporter who had witnessed criminal activity. The reporter moved to quash the subpoena, claiming insufficient evidence that the information was unavailable elsewhere. The court enforced the subpoena because the grand jury could itself determine whether the reporter possessed relevant evidence supporting an indictment.
A buyer sued an automobile manufacturer and dealer after an accident allegedly caused by a steering defect. The defendants moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the evidence of defect was speculative. The court denied the motion and submitted the case to the jury because the record contained sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that a defect caused the accident.
The evidence must permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the required fact exists. Courts apply this threshold when ruling on motions for judgment as a matter of law and when reviewing findings after trial.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under Rule 52(a)(5) a party may question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting findings even if it never requested findings, objected to them, or moved to amend them.
…True, the methodology of particular studies may be challenged, and some of the figures arrived at may be disputed. But the sufficiency of the evidence before Congress to provide a rational basis for the finding cannot seriously be questioned. Cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC , 520 U. S. 180, 199 (1997) ("The Constitution gives…
…as to defendant’s negligence either in installation or inspection of the unit upon installation. There can be no doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence
…sentence enhancement on the ground that it violates the United States Constitution. At the plea hearing, the trial judge heard sufficient evidence to establish Apprendi's guilt on counts 3, 18, and 22; the judge then confirmed that Apprendi understood the maximum sentences that could be imposed on those counts. Because the plea…
…could supply information to help the government determine whether illegal conduct had occurred and, if it had, whether there was sufficient evidence to return an indictment. Similar considerations dispose of the reporters' claims that preliminary to requiring their grand jury appearance, the State must show that a crime has been…
…presumption is an instrument of proof created by the law in favor of one accused, whereby his innocence is established until sufficient evidence is introduced to overcome the proof which the law has created. This presumption on the one hand, supplemented by any other
Supporting sources
The trial court need not find by a preponderance that the prior act occurred. It is enough that sufficient evidence exists for a reasonable jury to find the act under the Rule 104(b) conditional-relevance standard, provided the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
The presumption of innocence is overcome only when the prosecution introduces sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may test that sufficiency by motion at the close of the government's case.
Supporting sources
Failure to file a renewed motion under Rule 50(b) or a motion for new trial bars the party from arguing on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict.
Supporting sources