Trier of Fact Determines Weight of the Evidence
Just because there was conflicting evidence does not mean a new trial is warranted or the trier of fact got it wrong. It just means the trier of fact weighed that conflicting evidence differently then you. This is permissible because it is up to the trier of fact to determine the weight to be given to the evidence. Trials are filled with conflicting evidence and he said/she said testimony. This is why there is a dispute. The determination of who is right and who is wrong based on this conflicting evidence and the weight to be given to the evidence is left with the trier of fact.
“A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial motion if there was conflicting evidence presented at trial and the jury’s verdict was the product of its weighing that evidence to resolve the conflicts.” Alvarez v. Acosta, 2021 WL 4073029 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “When the evidence is in conflict, as it was in this case, it is the function of the jury to weigh the evidence and resolve those conflicts. It is neither the trial judge’s nor the appellate court’s role to disturb that determination. Reversal of a jury verdict is appropriate only in the absence of conflicting evidence, when there is no rational basis in the evidence to support the verdict.” Rosario-Paredes v. J.C. Wrecker Service, 975 So.2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); accord Weatherly v. Louis, 31 So.3d 803, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“Indeed, when, as here, the evidence is in conflict, the weight to be given that evidence is within the province of the jury.”).
Please contact David Adelstein at email@example.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.