Credibility of Witnesses in a Non-jury Hearing

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion. 

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

State v. Baggett, No. M2022-01658-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2023). 

As discussed below, the trial court made certain credibility findings. We note that, because “trial courts are able to observe witnesses as they testify and to assess their demeanor, . . . trial judges [are best suited] to evaluate witness credibility.” Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999) (citing State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990); Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)); see also Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Tenn. 2002) (“As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, a reviewing court must give ‘considerable deference’ to the trial judge with regard to oral, in-court testimony as it is the trial judge who has viewed the witnesses and heard the testimony.”). To this end, “appellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Wells, 9 S.W.3d at 783 (internal citations omitted).

SPSGNLV Inc. v. AAA Anondizing & Metal Finishing, Inc., No. E2022-01402-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2023).

Cannistra v. Brown, No. M2021-00833-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2022).

“One of the most time-honored principles of appellate review is that trial courts are best situated to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve factual disputes hinging on credibility determinations.” Mitchell v. Archibald, 971 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). As stated by the Tennessee Supreme Court, “[w]hen it comes to live, in-court witnesses, appellate courts should afford trial courts considerable deference when reviewing issues that hinge on the witnesses’ credibility because trial courts are ‘uniquely positioned to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses.’” Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014) (citations omitted). In conducting this deferential review, “a trial court’s determination of credibility will not be overturned on appeal unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tarrant, 363 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tenn. 2012).

In Re Arianna, No. M2021-00980-COA-R3-PT, p. 4  (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2022).

With regard to credibility determinations, this Court has stated:

When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded to the trial court’s factual findings. Further, “[o]n an issue which hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the trial court will not be reversed unless there is found in the record clear, concrete, and convincing evidence other than the oral testimony of witnesses which contradict the trial court’s findings.”

In re M.L.P., 228 S.W.3d 139, 143 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Seals v. England/Corsair Upholstery Mfg. Co., Inc., 984 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Tenn. 1999)). Accordingly, where issues of credibility and weight of testimony are involved, this Court will accord considerable deference to the trial court’s factual findings. Id.

In Re J.H., No. E2021-00624-COA-R3-PT, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2022).

The trial court reiterated this credibility finding in its final order.  See Franklin County Bd. of Educ. v. Crabtree, 337 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2005)) (noting that, if the trial court’s factual determinations are based on its assessment of witness credibility, the court would not reevaluate that assessment absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary). [Footnote omitted.]

Standley v. Standley, No. M2021-00591-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2022).

[T]his Court is “required to defer to the trial court’s credibility findings . . . ” [in a non-jury trial]. Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 120 (Tenn. 2015); see also Street v. Street, No. E2016-00531-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 1177034, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2017). “[A]ppellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999).

Gergel v. Gergel, No. E2020-01534-COA-R3-CV, p.13-14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).

[W]e emphasize that the trial court’s credibility determinations are afforded great weight on appeal. See Keyt, 244 S.W.3d at 327. [Footnote omitted.]

In re Caroline R. et al.,  No. E2021-00245-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2022).

Lastly, in the event that the “resolution of an issue in a case depends upon the truthfulness of witnesses, the trial judge, who has had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their manner and demeanor while testifying, is in a far better position than this Court to decide those issues.” In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579, 591 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (citing McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 910 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tenn. 1995); Whitaker v. Whitaker, 957 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). “Thus, this court gives great weight to the credibility accorded to a particular witness by the trial court.” In re Christopher J., No. W2016-02149-COA-R3-PT, 2017 WL 5992359, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2017) (citing Whitaker, 957 S.W.2d at 837).

Krulewicz v. Krulewicz, No. M2021-00190-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2022).

We accord great deference to the trial court’s witness credibility determinations. See Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014) (quoting State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tenn. 2000)) (“[A]ppellate courts should afford trial courts considerable deference when reviewing issues that hinge on the witnesses’ credibility because trial courts are ‘uniquely positioned to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses.’”); see also Lowe v. Smith, No. M2015-02472-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 5210874, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2016) (citing Taylor v. McKinnie, No. W2007-01468-COA-R3-JV, 2008 WL 2971767, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2008)) (“[T]he trial court’s findings on credibility, whether express or implicit, are entitled to great deference on appeal.”).

In Re Da’Moni J., No. E2021-00477-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2022).

Additionally, the Trial Court is the arbiter of witness credibility of those who testify live before it. As our Supreme Court has instructed:

When it comes to live, in-court witnesses, appellate courts should afford trial courts considerable deference when reviewing issues that hinge on the witnesses’ credibility because trial courts are “uniquely positioned to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses.” State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tenn. 2000). “[A]ppellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999); see also Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011). In order for evidence to be clear and convincing, it must eliminate any “serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 404 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208, 221 (Tenn. 2009)). Whether the evidence is clear and convincing is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo without a presumption of correctness. Reid ex rel. Martiniano v. State, 396 S.W.3d 478, 515 (Tenn. 2013), (citing In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586, 596-97 (Tenn. 2010)), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 224, 187 L.Ed.2d 167 (2013).

Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692-93 (Tenn. 2014).

Nelson v. Justice, No. E2020-01172-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2022)

[W]e note that “considerable deference is given to the trial court’s determinations of the credibility and weight to be given to witness testimony because ‘the trial court [had] the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and hear the in-court testimony.’” Massey v. Casals, 315 S.W.3d 788, 793-94 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Interstate Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh, 229 S.W.3d 674, 678 (Tenn. 2007)).