While this sounds like one of those basic principles that we learn in law school, such as the liberal construction of a complaint challenged by demurrer, this principle represents an obstacle to an appeal.

Think about it – judgments are presumed correct. Sounds simple, but what is means is that whenever a justice picks up your brief and starts to read it, that is his or her mindset. They have been instructed to preserve the judgment, if possible. It works something like a presumption of guilt except that the appellant is wrong and the court below is right.

Of course, it makes good sense because if judgments were not governed by this presumption or possibly presumed incorrect, then everyone would be running to the courthouse to challenge an adverse result. The courts are burdened enough as it is – remember those 75-85% of the cases where the court actually decided the judgment was in fact correct.

This principle is aptly expressed in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557:

“[I]t is settled that: ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’”

(Id. at p. 564.) What this means, as explained in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610, “‘The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error is on the appellant. This is a general principle of appellate practice as well as an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’”

As such, any ambiguities in the record favor the judgment. For instance, if there is an evidentiary conflict in an appeal based on the lack of substantial evidence, it will be resolved in favor of the respondent. Thus, “[t]he burden of demonstrating error rests on the appellant.” (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632.)