preponderance of evidence standard in Pennsylvania

2026To prove civil contempt, the complainant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “(1) the contemnor had notice of the specific order or decree which [s]he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) the act constituting the contemnor’s violation was volitional; and (3) the contemnor acted with wrongful intent.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720, 724 (Pa. Super. - 13 - 2004) (stating that “the preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., [enough] to tip a scale slightly[.]”).

2021It is well-settled that the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs requesting protection under the Act is low: “the preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the -6- criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence.” Raker, supra, at 724 .

2020The preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, Le.. to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidenee.' Ferri v. Ferri, 854 A -2d 600, 603 [Pa, Super, 2004) quoting commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961, 968 (Pa. 2001)- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that 'a defendant at a suppress-6)n hearing has the right to test the veracity of the facts recited in the affidavit in support of probable cause.

2019Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961, 968 (Pa. 2001). 5 Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 , 982-83 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“[T]he Protection from Abuse Act does not seek to determine criminal culpability.”) -7- was alone sufficient evidence to find that the events occurred as she described them.

2024“The preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence.” Ferri v. Ferri, 854 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

2017“The preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteri[on] or requirement for preponderance of the evidence.” Ferri v. Ferri, 854 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa. Super. 2004) (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). “[W]e must defer to the credibility determinations of the trial court.” Custer, 933 A.2d at 1058 .

2018Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474, 477 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).

2017Furthermore, the preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence. ____________________________________________ 3 Ms. Gresh did not file a responsive brief. -4- J-S58017-17 Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474, 477 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2018Trial Court Opinion, 10/4/17, at 7. 2 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102. -4- J-A04008-18 reasonable inference, determine whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence.” Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160, 161 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted).3 The preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence.

2014Furthermore, “the preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the -6- J-S66018-14 evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quoting Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720, 723 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

2017The standard was further explained by the Commonwealth Court in Commonwealth v. McJett, 811 A.2d 104 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (citations omitted).

2009The standard was further explained by this Court in Commonwealth v. McJett, 811 A.2d 104, 110 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (citations omitted): “Preponderance of the evidence is tantamount to a ‘more likely than not standard.’ ...

2017The preponderance of evidence standard requires proof "by a greater weight of the evidence." Id. at 1187 .

2017Williams. 732 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 1999), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained what the preponderance of evidence standard of proof requires.

2026“Nevertheless, a mere showing of noncompliance with a court order, or even misconduct, is never sufficient alone to prove civil contempt.” Thomas v. Thomas, 194 A.3d 220, 226 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Sutch v. Roxborough Mem’l Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 68 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that “the act constituting the violation must be deliberate, and the act of the alleged contemnor must have been done with improper intent.” (citations omitted)).

2026“Nevertheless, a mere showing of noncompliance with a court order, or even misconduct, is never sufficient alone to prove civil contempt.” Thomas v. Thomas, 194 A.3d 220, 226 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Sutch v. Roxborough Mem’l Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 68 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that “the act constituting the violation must be deliberate, and the act of the alleged contemnor must have been done with improper intent.” (citations omitted)).

2024With respect to Father’s challenge to the weight of the evidence, as an appellate court, “we defer to the trial court's credibility determinations, and we are not entitled to re-weigh the evidence.” K.B. v. Tinsley, 208 A.3d 123, 129 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272 , 1276 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating “the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony is within the exclusive province of the trial court as the fact finder.” (emphasis added)).

2021As stated by this Court in Woods, “the preponderance of evidence standard does not require absolute certainty that if redacted portions were to be disclosed, there would be a breach of public safety . . . .” Id. at 670 (emphasis added).

2019Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961, 968 (Pa. 2001). 5 Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 , 982-83 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“[T]he Protection from Abuse Act does not seek to determine criminal culpability.”) -7- was alone sufficient evidence to find that the events occurred as she described them.

2016Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super.2014) (en banc) (section 9712.1 unconstitutional under Alleyne and statute’s “proof at sentencing” subsection not severable); see also Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800, 801 (Pa.Super.2014) (same as to section 9718).

2015“The purpose of the [PFAA] Act is to protect victims of domestic violence from those who perpetrate such abuse, with the primary goal of advance prevention of physical and sexual abuse.” Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017, 1022 (Pa.Super. 2008).

2014Despite the lesser standard, the quasi-criminal nature of forfeiture proceedings is undisputed.” Commonwealth v. Anthony, 613 A.2d 581, 583 (Pa. Super. 1992) (citations omitted). [T]wo distinct classifications of contraband have been developed: contraband per se, and derivative contraband.

2014“Analysis of whether property should be forfeited to the Commonwealth is dependent upon whether the property is contraband; the burden of proving that the property is contraband rests upon the Commonwealth.” In re Firearms, Eleven, 922 A.2d 906, 910 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 932 A.2d 1289 (Pa. 2007). “[T]he Commonwealth’s burden in forfeiture proceedings is a preponderance of evidence standard.

2014See, e.g., Esquilin, 880 A.2d at 531 (noting that “the confiscated zip-lock packets were laboratory tested, and each was found to contain cocaine” thereby demonstrating a nexus between the cash and “illegal drug dealing ….”).

2014See, e.g., Esquilin, 880 A.2d at 531 (noting that “the confiscated zip-lock packets were laboratory tested, and each was found to contain cocaine” thereby demonstrating a nexus between the cash and “illegal drug dealing....”).

2014See N.T., 1/27/12, at 7; In re Antonious, 358 B.R. at 181 (stating that “[w]hen a creditor seeks a determination that he holds a nondis-chargeable debt under 11 U.S.C.[A.] § 523(a), he bears the burden of demonstrating nondischargeability by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Ferri v. Ferri, 854 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa.Super.2004) (stating that “[t]he preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); In re Hanc

2014See N.T., 1/27/12, at 7; In re Antonious, 358 B.R. at 181 (stating that “[w]hen a creditor seeks a determination that he holds a nondis-chargeable debt under 11 U.S.C.[A.] § 523(a), he bears the burden of demonstrating nondischargeability by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Ferri v. Ferri, 854 A.2d 600, 603 (Pa.Super.2004) (stating that “[t]he preponderance of evidence standard is defined as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the criteria or requirement for preponderance of the evidence.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); In re Hanc

2011Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 385-7 , 543 A.2d 534, 538 (1988); Mackalica v. Mackalica, 716 A.2d 653, 655-6 (Pa.Super.1998).

2011Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 385-7 , 543 A.2d 534, 538 (1988); Mackalica v. Mackalica, 716 A.2d 653, 655-6 (Pa.Super.1998).

2011Sutliff v. Sutliff, 518 Pa. 378, 385-7 , 543 A.2d 534, 538 (1988); Mackalica v. Mackalica, 716 A.2d 653, 655-6 (Pa.Super.1998).