/EV-uh-dens SUF-i-shuhnt too suh-PORT uh FIND-ing/
Also known as:evidence sufficient to support the finding · sufficiency of the evidence · substantial evidence
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard of proof that requires the proponent to introduce evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that a preliminary fact is true. The showing need only permit a finding. It does not require the factfinder to accept the fact as proven.
See Our Sources· 10 primary sources
Cases
Statutes
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Restatements
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Custody Jurisdiction Evidence
Emanuel Escobar and his former spouse litigate custody after the child moves from State A to State B. The father offers school records, medical files, and neighbor affidavits showing the child's daily routines and relationships now center in State B. The court finds this body of material constitutes evidence sufficient to support a finding that substantial evidence concerning the child's care is available in State B, allowing it to exercise jurisdiction under the significant-connection test.
Post-Trial Sufficiency Challenge
After a bench trial, Empire Logistics loses on a contract claim. It never requested findings or moved to amend them. On appeal it argues the trial evidence could not support the court's conclusion that a valid agreement existed. The appellate court holds that Empire may still question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings even though it took none of those steps at trial.
Authentication of Video
Edith Eberhardt offers a body-camera clip received by anonymous email to prove the traffic stop at issue. She points to the officers' uniforms, the marked patrol car numbers, and radio transmissions matching the time and location she described. The court rules that these internal characteristics supply evidence sufficient to support a finding that the clip is the recording of her stop, satisfying the authentication requirement.
Significant Connection Finding
Eric Espinoza seeks an initial custody order in State A after the child lived there for eight months with him. He presents current school enrollment records, therapy notes, and testimony from local caregivers. The court determines this material constitutes evidence sufficient to support a finding of substantial evidence in State A concerning the child's present care and personal relationships, satisfying the best-interest prong for jurisdiction.
Loss of Continuing Jurisdiction
Elise Everly obtained a custody decree in State A. Three years later the child and both parents have moved permanently to State B. State A reviews the record and finds no remaining significant connection and that substantial evidence concerning the child's care is no longer available there. The court concludes this determination means it no longer possesses exclusive continuing jurisdiction.
Sufficiency of Trial Evidence
Eduardo Enriquez is convicted after a jury trial on evidence that included graphic videos of animal cruelty. On appeal he contends the videos were insufficient to support the verdict. The reviewing court examines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and upholds the conviction because the record contains evidence sufficient to support that finding.
United States v. Stevens559 U.S. 460 (2010)
On the evening of April 15, 1989, two white Air Force police officers named Jane Smith and Tony McCormack were walking back to their dormitories at Fort Dix, New Jersey, after seeing a movie. They sat under a glass-enclosed bus shelter to avoid light rain.
A black male wearing a wool cap and tan nylon jogging suit entered the shelter, drew a small silver handgun, robbed McCormack of his wallet containing an unsigned $100 money order, and forced Smith to perform fellatio on him while threatening to shoot McCormack. After the assailant fled when a car drove by, the victims contacted military police.
Investigator Christine Amos suggested they look at a wanted board containing eight posters with composite sketches and photographs. McCormack immediately identified a photograph of defendant Richard Stevens, and Smith agreed it resembled the attacker though he appeared heavier in the photo. Smith then went to Walson Army Community Hospital where a doctor administered a rape crisis kit and attempted to secure semen samples from her saliva and clothing, producing three glass slides.
The FBI laboratory later performed serological testing on one slide containing sufficient semen, which consumed all material on the slide and prevented DNA testing. A consent order had directed the FBI to preserve samples if possible after its own tests so Stevens could conduct DNA testing. The government made remaining materials available to the defense nearly six weeks later, but testing proved inconclusive. Stevens was indicted on charges of aggravated sexual assault and robbery within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Stevens's first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked. At the second trial in March 1990, the district court permitted expert testimony on cross-racial identifications, weapon focus, and stress but excluded testimony on the lack of correlation between confidence and accuracy in identifications. The court also excluded testimony from Tyrone Mitchell, who had been robbed at gunpoint three days later at Fort Dix in a similar manner; Mitchell did not identify Stevens, and the fruits of both crimes ended up near Fort Meade, Maryland. The jury convicted Stevens on both counts, and the district court sentenced him to 168 months of incarceration.
Stevens appealed, challenging the destruction of the semen sample, the wanted board identification, the admission of pretrial services testimony, the limits on expert testimony, and the exclusion of the Mitchell evidence. The Third Circuit reviewed the record developed at the Wade hearing, the Brady motion hearing, the Downing hearing on expert testimony, and the trial proceedings.
5 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What quantum of proof satisfies the authentication requirement under Rule 901?
The proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. This prima facie standard permits admission once a reasonable jury could conclude the item is authentic. The jury then decides ultimate weight.
May a party challenge the sufficiency of findings on appeal without having requested or objected to them at trial?
Yes. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(5) expressly permits a party to question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings whether or not the party requested findings, objected to them, moved to amend them, or moved for partial findings.
How does the substantial-evidence requirement function in child-custody jurisdiction statutes?
A court may exercise jurisdiction when substantial evidence is available in the state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships. This showing supports a finding of significant connection and permits the court to proceed even if it is not the home state.
What happens when substantial evidence is no longer available in the decree state?
The decree state loses exclusive continuing jurisdiction once it determines that neither the child nor a parent has a significant connection with the state and that substantial evidence concerning the child's care is no longer available there.
Does the personal-knowledge rule use the same sufficiency standard?
Yes. A witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Second-hand reports or inferences drawn from partial observations ordinarily fail this threshold.
evidence
" and held that the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the…
the jury's verdict. Whether petitioners in fact advocated overthrow by force is not before us; we rely on the Court of Appeals' findings. That court held the record amply…
evidence
could
support
an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”…
, the court determines whether, viewing the
evidence
in the light most favorable to the government and bearing in mind that it is the exclusive function of the jury to determine the…
Civil ProcedureMotions · Posttrial motions, including motions for relief from judgment and for new trialUBEIntermediate