What is the standard of review on a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence?

The standard of review on a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is known as the abuse of discretion standard. This means that if a court decides to admit or exclude certain evidence, that decision will be upheld on appeal if it was reasonable and made in good faith. In Nevada, the appellate court looks to see if the trial court’s decision was clearly wrong or arbitrary. The strength of the appellate court’s review also depends on the type of evidence in question. For instance, if the evidence is hard for an appellate court to reconsider, the trial court’s decision is likely to be more heavily weighed. The appellate court also looks to whether the trial court’s decision was based on precedent, if any. If a court has previously admitted or excluded the same type of evidence, this will likely influence the court’s decision on appeal. In conclusion, the appellate court will review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence based on if the decision was made reasonably and in good faith and will carefully consider the type of evidence and any relevant precedent.

Related FAQs

How often do the appellate courts review their decisions?
What is the process for obtaining an order of remand from an appellate court?
What are the consequences of an appellate court’s decision?
What is an amicus curiae brief?
What is the procedure for filing a petition for rehearing en banc?
What is the appellate court’s jurisdiction over a case?
What is the standard of review on a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence?
What is a writ of certiorari and how is it used in appellate practice?
How do I protect my rights if I do not have an attorney during an appeal?
What is the role of the appellate court in determining the facts of a case?

What is the standard of review on a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts