Also known as: sufficient evidence · sufficiency of the evidence · evidentiary sufficiency
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The quantum of proof required to support a factual finding or verdict. Evidence meets this standard when a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the essential elements are established under the applicable burden of proof.
After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Park Environmental with only a brief statement that Oak Earth failed to prove expected waste volumes. Oak Earth had not requested findings or objected before judgment. On appeal Oak Earth argued the evidence could not support the outcome. The appellate court permitted the challenge because a party may question sufficiency regardless of prior requests or objections.
The prosecution sought to introduce Steve's earlier consulting payments from a youth sports nonprofit to show motive and plan in the current embezzlement case. It presented invoices and board minutes but no direct proof services were absent. The court admitted the evidence after finding the jury could reasonably conclude the prior act occurred under the conditional-relevance standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Davis was charged with murder and raised an insanity defense. The government introduced lay testimony that Davis appeared rational before and after the shooting. Davis offered only minimal expert testimony. The jury found the evidence sufficient to conclude Davis was sane at the time of the offense.
McCleskey presented statewide statistics showing racial disparities in death sentences. The state countered with case-specific evidence of aggravating factors and victim impact. The court held the statistical showing alone did not meet the threshold needed to establish an equal-protection violation in McCleskey's individual case.
Liberty Lobby opposed summary judgment by pointing to the author's reliance on allegedly unreliable sources. The district court granted the motion after finding no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a jury could reasonably find actual malice from the source choices.
The government introduced recordings made by an informant wearing a concealed transmitter. The defendant argued the evidence was insufficient because the informant might have been coerced. The court found the informant's testimony and the recordings themselves supplied enough evidence for the jury to conclude consent was voluntary.
A party may question sufficiency even without having requested findings, objected, or moved to amend. The reviewing court examines whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements under the governing burden of proof.
Supporting sources
The trial court need not find the prior act proved by a preponderance. It is enough that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant committed the act, provided the probative value on a non-propensity issue is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
The party is barred on appeal from arguing the evidence was legally insufficient, whether seeking judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
Supporting sources
Due process is violated if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
…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…