What is the test for a jury to reach a conclusion that only one reasonable conclusion can be deducible from the evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Marquez v. Ortiz, 159 Cal.App.2d 721, 324 P.2d 720 (Cal. App. 1958):
Unless it can be said as a matter of law that only one reasonable conclusion is legally deducible from the evidence, the trial court is not justified in taking the case away from the jury. Gish v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp., 13 Cal.2d 570, 572-573, 90 P.2d 792; United v. Scofield Eng. Const. Co., 203 Cal. 224, 228, 263 P. 799.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Can a judge overturn a finding that the evidence supports a judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
What is a reasonable inference when it comes to conclusions that are contrary to uncontradicted evidence that reasonable people would not doubt? (California, United States of America)
When a conviction for sexual assault is based primarily on circumstantial evidence, does the court have to presume every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court have authority to exclude evidence where a defendant has been found to be contrary to the evidence code under section 352 of the California Evidence Code? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for accepting as true all evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for accepting the reasonable and the unreasonable conclusions when considering circumstantial evidence in a murder trial? (California, United States of America)
Does the absence of lingering doubt from a recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise reasonable doubt raise a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
Does a competent, unconflicted counsel who submitted on the evidence at the preliminary hearing, should have argued to the trial court that this evidence did not establish the lawful duty element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
