What is the test for establishing that a trier can reasonably deduce from the evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Sanders, B249682 (Cal. App. 2014):
Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [61 L.Ed.2d 560, 99 S.Ct. 2781].) In so doing, a reviewing court 'presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68].)" (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.)
"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
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)
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)
Does the entire record disclose evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant Lopez premeditated and deliberated? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a judge rely on the presumption of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether there is substantial evidence by which a reasonable trier of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
In a personal injury case, what is the test for assuming that every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce 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)
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)
Does the evidence support the finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the sexual assault charges against Backman were not supported by the weight of the evidence? (California, United States of America)
