noting that “it is not accurate to say that the appellate court takes that view of the evidence that is most favorable to the appellee” when reviewing findings of the court (quotation simplified)
How later courts described this case
- noting that “it is not accurate to say that the appellate court takes that view of the evidence that is most favorable to the appellee” when reviewing findings of the court (quotation simplified)
- "The appellate court.... does not consider and weigh the evidence de novo. The mere fact that on the same evidence the appellate court might have reached a different result does not justify it in setting the findings aside." (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- establishing the "clearly erroneous” standard of review for findings in criminal cases pursuant to rule 52(a)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HALL, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I do not join the Court in reversing the conviction on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.
This is not a case lacking in evidence. Rather, it is a case where the evidence is simply in conflict. In the face of conflicting testimony, the trial judge was called upon to assess the credibility of the witnesses. This he did, and I am not persuaded that the findings he made were without adequate evidentiary support or that they were otherwise clearly erroneous.
The trial judge found that the offenses were committed on October 14,1984, a date after defendant’s eighteenth birthday. That finding is supported by the testimony of both victims, who described in detail the incident of sexual abuse that occurred the day their mother went to a function with a friend, the date thereof being later established as October 14, 1984. The judge’s finding is also supported by the victims’ mother, who testified that defendant told her that the molestations began in the summer of 1983 and continued through the last time he babysat the children on October 14, 1984.
Although the majority opinion recounts the conflicting evidence in considerable detail, the mere fact that on the same evidence this Court might reach a different result does not justify it in setting aside the trial judge’s findings.
I am of the view that the majority of the Court has misapplied the clearly erroneous standard of review. I would affirm the judgment and conviction.
HOWE, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HALL, C.J.