Opinion ID: 2585179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court of Appeals Correctly Viewed Evidence in the Light Most Favorable to the Prevailing Party in the Absence of Findings as to Disputed Factual Issues.

Text: The state contends that the court of appeals erred by failing to view evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party in the absence of findings as to disputed issues. Smith notes that the state misquoted the standard of reviewthe appellate court must view evidence most favorable to the prevailing party in the absence of findings as to disputed factual issues. Possibly because of the quotation error, the state interprets appellate deference to the trial court too broadly. The state specifically argues that the court of appeals should have adopted an interpretation of what Sergeant Barnes said that was most favorable to the state. The state fails to distinguish between the fact itself and the application of the law to the fact. In the absence of express findings, the appellate court must resolve disputed factual issues in favor of the prevailing party, but it is under no such requirement when applying the law to the facts. For example, what Barnes actually said in the interview is a fact. Although the superior court made no express finding, an appellate court should accept the transcript of the interview as an accurate record of what was actually said, unless clearly erroneous. How a reasonable person would interpret a statement in that transcript, however, is a mixed question of law and factan application of the law to the fact of what was said. [12] It is not simply a disputed fact that must be construed in the state's favor. Thus, the court of appeals correctly applied its independent judgment to determine how a reasonable person would interpret Sergeant Barnes's statement.