Also known as: preponderance of the evidence · preponderant evidence · preponderance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of proof requiring that the existence of a contested fact be more probable than not. The factfinder must be persuaded that the proposition is more likely true than false on the basis of the evidence presented.
After Dorothy's plane crash, her daughter Hannah petitions the probate court to bar Catherine from taking shares under the will. The court holds a civil hearing and weighs the pre-flight modifications, Catherine's comments about leadership, and weather conditions. Finding it more probable than not that Catherine feloniously and intentionally caused the death, the court applies the preponderance standard and denies Catherine any benefit.
The prosecution offers Steve's earlier nonprofit payments to prove motive and absence of mistake in the current embezzlement case. The trial court admits the evidence after confirming the jury could reasonably find the prior acts occurred. The court does not itself decide the prior acts by a preponderance before letting the jury consider them for the non-propensity purpose.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The coach's will leaves shares to the player who captained his toughest team, but two captains and two facilities fit the description. Helen and Ruby each present statements and timing evidence. The probate court finds the donor's intention more probable than not on the record and distributes the shares to Helen under the preponderance standard.
In a capital sentencing proceeding, the defendant offers statistical studies showing racial disparities in death sentences. The court evaluates whether the studies make it more probable than not that race influenced the sentence in this case. The evidence fails to meet the preponderance threshold and does not establish the required constitutional violation.
The defendant claims heat of passion to reduce murder to manslaughter. The prosecution must prove the absence of heat of passion beyond a reasonable doubt once the issue is raised. The jury finds the prosecution has not met its burden, but the underlying facts are weighed under the civil preponderance lens in related civil proceedings.
In a juvenile proceeding, the court must decide whether the juvenile committed the charged acts. The prosecution presents evidence of the theft. Related civil determinations of the same facts may be established by a preponderance and adjudicated under the civil standard rather than the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt rule.
Preponderance requires only that the fact be more probable than not. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the higher criminal standard that protects the presumption of innocence and applies to every element of a crime.
When an ambiguity arises to which no rule of construction applies, the donor's intention is followed to the extent it is established by a preponderance of the evidence from the text and extrinsic evidence.
A final criminal conviction for felonious and intentional killing conclusively establishes slayer status in the civil proceeding. In the absence of a conviction the court applies the preponderance standard independently.
No. The court need not find the prior act proved by a preponderance. The evidence is admissible if the jury could reasonably find the act occurred and the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair 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…