Also known as: sufficient to sustain the finding · sufficiency of the evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A minimal evidentiary threshold that evidence must meet to permit a finding on a factual issue. The proponent need only produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the fact true.
After judgment in a bench trial, Santiago Sanchez moved to question whether the record contained enough proof on lost profits. The court permitted the challenge even though Sanchez had not requested findings or objected earlier. The appellate court reviewed whether the evidence met the threshold for sustaining the damages finding.
Serena Soto challenged her state conviction through federal habeas. She argued the prosecution's circumstantial proof fell short of the required threshold. The court examined whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements satisfied on the existing record.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Steven Silva faced charges of conspiracy to defraud. The government introduced testimony and documents linking him to the scheme. The court assessed whether that proof crossed the line needed for a jury to find his knowing participation.
Sarah Sullivan appealed an agency ruling that her discharge was justified. The record contained conflicting witness statements and performance logs. The reviewing court checked whether the agency's factual conclusion rested on evidence a reasonable mind could accept.
Sierra Santos was prosecuted under a statute regulating depictions of animal cruelty. The government offered videos and expert testimony to show the material fell within the prohibition. The court evaluated whether the proof was enough for a jury to conclude the depictions were real.
Sydney Santos raised a duress defense in a prison-escape prosecution. She presented testimony about threats and her subjective fear. The court determined whether that evidence met the threshold allowing a jury to find the defense elements satisfied.
The sufficient to sustain a finding standard requires only that a reasonable jury could find the preliminary fact true. The preponderance standard requires the judge to be persuaded that the fact is more likely true than not.
Supporting sources
A party may question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting findings even if it never requested findings, objected to them, moved to amend them, or moved for partial findings.
Supporting sources
The party is barred on appeal from arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict.
Supporting sources
…insufficient, see ante , at 21. But once again, the plurality must be reading someone else’s opinion. I express no view on sufficiency of the evidence because it is irrelevant to the Confrontation Clause issue we took this case to decide. It is the plurality that wrongly links the two, spending another five pages trumpeting the strength…