What is substantial evidence?

What is considered substantial evidence?  We have been told that “[s]ubstantial evidence” must be “of ponderable legal significance, . . . reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value . . . ‘Obviously the word cannot be deemed synonymous with ‘any’ evidence.’”  (Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873.)  Moreover, in resolving appeals based on this ground, the courts will look to the entire record, and not just to evidence that is favorable to the appellant or isolated from a consideration of the record as a whole.  (Ibid.)

 In my opinion, the term “substantial evidence” is not accurate.  To say that substantial evidence supports the judgment implies a weighing or that the quantity of evidence is somehow significant.  We know that is not always the case.  Juries are often instructed that they can believe one witness over a multitude of witnesses.  What matters is that there is credible evidence to support the decision.

An appeal on this ground also should avoid examining the evidence with a focus on credibility, because that is the function of the trier of fact and not the appellate courts.  Clients will often complain that a witness has lied but unless that lie can be affirmatively established on the record, the jury is entitled to believe who it wants.  (Tupman v. Haberkern (1929) 208 Cal. 256, 261; In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 278.)

Nor does it matter that the appellate court considered the evidence and had they been the triers of fact, they might have ruled in another way or even found there was substantial evidence to support a different decision.  The appellate court cannot substitute its opinions and conclusions for those of the trier of fact.  (Bowers v. Bernards, supra, 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 874 [“If such substantial evidence can be found, it is of no consequence that the trial court believing other evidence, or drawing other reasonable inferences, might have reached a contrary conclusion.”]