§ 3.7.2.6.5.5 Evidence.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.5.5 Evidence. The appellate court views all evidence and the reasonable conclusions therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict or trial court decision. See Salica v. Tucson Heart Hosp.-Carondelet, 224 Ariz. 414, 416, ¶ 2, 231 P.3d 946, 948 (App. 2010); Powers v. Taser Int’l Inc., 217 Ariz. 398, 399 n.1, ¶ 4, 174 P.3d 777, 778 n.1 (App. 2007); Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp., 194 Ariz. 142, 144, ¶ 2, 978 P.2d 119, 121 (App. 1998). It must not disturb the verdict if reasonable minds could differ as to the inferences to be drawn from the facts. See S Dev. Co. v. Pima Capital Mgmt. Co., 201 Ariz. 10, 18, ¶ 16, 31 P.3d 123, 131 (App. 2001). The appellate court will affirm the trial court’s judgment if there is any reasonable evidence supporting it. See Spaulding v. Pouliot, 218 Ariz. 196, 199, ¶ 8, 181 P.3d 243, 246 (App. 2008).

When viewing the trial court’s findings as a ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence as the fact finder, the court of appeals draws all inferences from the evidence in favor of the judgment. See Johnson v. Pankratz, 196 Ariz. 621, 626, ¶ 20, 2 P.3d 1266, 1271 (App. 2000). In an appeal from a declaratory judgment, the appellate court also views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment. See Cornman Tweedy 560, LLC v. City of Casa Grande, 213 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 2, 137 P.3d 309, 310 (2006).

The appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision admitting evidence for a clear abuse of discretion or legal error and resulting prejudice. See Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp., 235 Ariz. 520, 525 ¶ 16, 334 P.3d 210, 215 (App. 2014); TM2008 Investments, Inc. v. Procon Capital Corp., 234 Ariz. 421, 424, ¶ 12, 323 P.3d 704, 707 (App. 2014). The appellate court will not disturb its decision unless a clear abuse of discretion appears and prejudice results, or the trial court misapplied the law. See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 506, 917 P.2d 222, 235 (1996); Arellano v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 235 Ariz. 371, 376, ¶ 20, 332 P.3d 597, 602 (App. 2014); Lohmeier v. Hammer, 214 Ariz. 57, 60-61, ¶ 7, 148 P.3d 101, 104-05 (App. 2006). A trial court abuses its discretion with respect to admission or exclusion of evidence when it exercises discretion in a manner that is either “manifestly unreasonable” or based on untenable grounds or reasons. See Kimu P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 39, 42, ¶ 11, 178 P.3d 511, 514 (App. 2008).

If the trial court’s evidentiary ruling is predicated on a question of law, the appellate court reviews that ruling de novo. See McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 231 Ariz. 244, 258, ¶ 44, 293 P.3d 520, 534 (App. 2013); Felder v. Physiotherapy Assocs., 215 Ariz. 154, 166, ¶ 55, 158 P.3d 877, 889 (App. 2007). Because it is a legal question, the court of appeals reviews de novo whether an evidentiary privilege applies. See Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 218 Ariz. 52, 57, ¶ 20, 178 P.3d 1176, 1181 (App. 2008). In determining whether evidence was improperly excluded, the...