The "Clear and Convincing" Evidence Standard in California (2024)

Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that tells a judge or jury that it is highly probable that a fact is true. The term refers to a standard of proof used in both civil and certain phases of criminal court cases. States vary as to when, or in what types of cases, a party has to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard.

Depending on the type of case, jurisdictions may also adopt three other standards of proof when resolving a civil or criminal matter. These are the:

  1. preponderance of the evidence standard,
  2. substantial evidence standard, and
  3. beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Note that a person filing a civil lawsuit can learn which standard of proof applies to his/her case by researching the issue or speaking with an attorney.

If a person is a juror in a civil case, the judge presiding over the matter will provide jury instructions that inform of the applicable level of proof.

All jurisdictions apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials.
The "Clear and Convincing" Evidence Standard in California (1)
Our California criminal defense attorneys will highlight the following in this article:

  • 1. What is clear and convincing evidence?
  • 2. Are there other evidentiary standards?
  • 3. How does a person know what burden to meet?
  • 4. What is the law in California?
  • Additional reading

The "Clear and Convincing" Evidence Standard in California (2)

“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that tells a judge or jury that it is highly probable that a fact is true.

1. What is clear and convincing evidence?

The clear and convincing evidence standard is a burden of proof that parties must meet typically in civil lawsuits.

Plaintiffs will satisfy their burden by presenting evidence that shows that it is highly probable that a fact is true. In other words, a trier of fact (or a judge or jury) must be able to use the evidence presented to determine that it is highly and substantially more likely that a particular fact is true rather than untrue.1

States vary in terms of when this standard will apply. With that said, however, plaintiffs usually have to meet this level of proof in civil cases involving:

  • fraud,
  • restraining orders,
  • the probate of wills,
  • withdrawing life support, and
  • conservatorships.2

In comparison to other standards of proof, convincing proof is a higher standard of proof when compared to the preponderance of the evidence standard. However, it is a lower standard to meet than the beyond a reasonable doubt legal standard.

2. Are there other evidentiary standards?

States usually use three other standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. These include:

  1. the preponderance of the evidence standard,
  2. the substantial evidence standard, and
  3. beyond a reasonable doubt.

States may also use these standards in appellate courts or when a case gets resolved in a court of appeal.

Preponderance of the evidence

A party meets this standard upon showing a fact finder that it is more likely than not that a fact is true. “More likely than not” means that it is more than 50 percent likely that a fact is true.

Clear and convincing evidence is considered a higher burden of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard. This means it is harder to show clear and convincing evidence as opposed to a preponderance of the evidence.

A preponderance of the evidence standard applies in most civil lawsuits, including those involving a personal injury and violations of civil liberty.

Substantial evidence

Substantial evidence is a standard that requires a party to show such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind could accept this evidence as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence.3

This standard is often used in resolving administrative law issues at administrative hearings. During an administrative hearing, a judge reviews the decision made by a government agency.

For example, an administrative law judge may review a Department of Motor Vehicle’s decision to suspend a motorist’s driver’s license.

Appellate judges that review an administrative law judge’s decision also use this standard.

The standard is considered an intermediate standard, as it falls between a showing of probable cause and the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Note that “probable cause” is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment. Courts usually find probable cause when they find there to be a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed. Police usually must have probable cause before they:

  • make an arrest,
  • conduct a search, or
  • receive a warrant.4

Beyond a reasonable doubt

This is the highest standard of proof used in the legal system.

Under every state’s criminal laws, a prosecutor must prove in a criminal trial, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant committed the crime charged to successfully convict that person of the offense.5

Jurisdictions differ in terms of how much evidence a prosecutor has to show to meet this standard.

Most, though, say it is not enough for a trial court to believe that a defendant is guilty of a crime. Rather, a prosecutor must present evidence that is so convincing of guilt that there is no question in the mind of the trier that the defendant committed the crime charged.

Courts sometimes say that this standard is met when a prosecutor can show, to a moral certainty, that the defendant committed a crime. This means the evidence supports only one logical conclusion, and that is that the defendant committed the crime charged.6

Note, however, that the standard does not require a prosecutor to show, to an absolute certainty, that the accused committed an offense.

3. How does a person know what burden to meet?

If a person is filing a lawsuit, then that party can learn what burden of proof he/she must meet by researching the matter.

In many instances, a person can learn what standard of proof applies to their case by researching on the internet.

A party can also discover the applicable level of proof by speaking with an attorney. Most attorneys provide free consultations, so parties can learn what standard applies without spending a dime.

Note that some cases may involve multiple issues or more than one claim. In these situations, more than one standard may apply to the case.

Note, too, that if a person is a juror who must decide a case, the judge will provide jury instructions that advise on the burden of proof for the person to use in deciding the matter.

4. What is the law in California?

California law generally follows the discussion set forth above.

Clear and convincing evidence is a showing that there is a high probability that a fact is true, as opposed to something simply being more likely than not.7

This standard is often used in California personal injury cases where the plaintiff seeks punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. To receive punitive damages, a plaintiff must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant acted with either:

  • malice,
  • oppression, or
  • fraud.

In normal personal injury cases, where punitive damages are not an issue, a plaintiff only has to prove a case by a preponderance of the evidence.8

This means it is more likely true than not true that what the plaintiff claims happened did in fact happen.9

Under California law, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is defined as follows:

“It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.”10

Additional reading

For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:

Legal References:

  1. See, for example, the Supreme Court case of Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984).
  2. See, for example, Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Cal.4 519 (2001); and, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
  3. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).
  4. See U.S. v. Riemer, 392 F.Supp. 1291 (1975).
  5. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
  6. See Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition – “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  7. California Evidence Code 115. See also CACI No. 201 – Clear and Convincing Proof, Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2020 edition).
  8. California Evidence Code 115.
  9. CACI No. 201.
  10. California Penal Code 1096.
The "Clear and Convincing" Evidence Standard in California (2024)

FAQs

The "Clear and Convincing" Evidence Standard in California? ›

In California, clear and convincing evidence must be substantially more likely than not to be true. This type of evidence is used in civil cases as well as certain family law issues such as name changes, guardianship proceedings, conservatorships, adoption cases, etc.

What is the clear and convincing evidence standard in California? ›

“Clear and convincing evidence” is evidence that tells a judge or jury that it is highly probable that a fact is true. The term refers to a standard of proof used in both civil and certain phases of criminal court cases.

What is the standard of clear and convincing evidence? ›

New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984), "clear and convincing” means that the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. In other words, the fact finder must be convinced that the contention is highly probable. States vary with regard to which standard of proof they require.

Is preponderance of evidence enough to convict? ›

Preponderance refers to the evidentiary standard necessary for a victory in a civil case. Proving a proposition by the preponderance of the evidence requires demonstrating that the proposition is more likely true than not true.

What is the standard of proof a prosecutor must prove in order to get a conviction in criminal court? ›

The standard of proof in a criminal trial gives the prosecutor a much greater burden than the plaintiff in a civil trial. The defendant must be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means the evidence must be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

What is clear and convincing 75%? ›

Clear and convincing evidence is an intermediary burden of proof that is similar to showing a 75% likelihood that something occurred. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof.

How to prove clear and convincing evidence? ›

It can involve providing direct or circ*mstantial proof that something is highly probable as compared to its opposite being improbable. Under this standard, the party holding the burden of proof must prove that it is substantially more likely than not for something to be true.

What is the burden of proof in a civil case is clear and convincing evidence? ›

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.

What is clear and convincing evidence and substantial evidence? ›

"Clear and convincing" means the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue; the trier of fact must have an abiding conviction that the truth of the factual contention is highly probable.

What are the three standards of evidence? ›

Depending on the jurisdiction and type of action, the legal standard to satisfy the burden of proof in U.S. litigation may include, but is not limited to: beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal law. clear and convincing evidence in fraud in will disputes. preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases.

What is the strongest form of evidence against a defendant? ›

This could include: Physical evidence: Physical evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints, or weapons, can be strong evidence against the defendant if it directly links the defendant to the crime.

How hard is it to prove preponderance of the evidence? ›

As discussed in the previous section, preponderance of evidence does not have the same high burden of proof as reasonable doubt. In order for a civil court plaintiff to show preponderance of evidence, they only need to show that whatever they are alleging took place.

What percentage is beyond a reasonable doubt? ›

Whereas, in a civil trial, a party may prevail with as little as 51 percent probability (a preponderance), those legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent.

What percentage is clear and convincing evidence? ›

The “clear and convincing evidence” standard does not involve a specific percentage or quantifiable measurement, unlike the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which is often described as “more likely than not” or a “balance of probabilities” (meaning that the evidence presented tips the scales slightly in favor ...

What three conditions must be present before a prosecutor charges a criminal case? ›

(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.

What are the 3 elements a prosecutor must prove in every criminal case? ›

Elements of a Crime

In general, every crime involves three elements: first, the act or conduct (actus reus); second, the individual's mental state at the time of the act (mens rea); and third, the causation between the act and the effect (typically either proximate causation or but-for causation).

What is the California relevant evidence standard? ›

In both California and federal courts, evidence must be relevant to be admissible. Evidence is considered relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

What is the substantial evidence standard in California? ›

"Substantial evidence" Standard

The appellate court's function is not to decide whether it would have reached the same factual conclusions as the judge or jury. The appellate court just decides whether a reasonable fact-finder could have come to the same conclusion based on the facts in the record.

What is the California civil standard of proof? ›

The burden of proof may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or nonexistence of a fact or that he establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact by a preponderance of the evidence, by clear and convincing proof, or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What is the expert evidence rule in California? ›

California Code, Evidence Code - EVID § 720

(a) A person is qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Neely Ledner

Last Updated:

Views: 6189

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (42 voted)

Reviews: 81% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Neely Ledner

Birthday: 1998-06-09

Address: 443 Barrows Terrace, New Jodyberg, CO 57462-5329

Phone: +2433516856029

Job: Central Legal Facilitator

Hobby: Backpacking, Jogging, Magic, Driving, Macrame, Embroidery, Foraging

Introduction: My name is Neely Ledner, I am a bright, determined, beautiful, adventurous, adventurous, spotless, calm person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.