In a pivotal discussion during the Utah Supreme Court hearing on State v. Wilcox, the focus centered on whether the state successfully proved that the defendant was unjustified in using force. The court examined the sufficiency of evidence, emphasizing the need for clear and convincing proof. This standard, akin to those used in parental termination cases, requires a high level of deference to the trial court's findings.

Justice Polman highlighted the importance of the trial court's role as a fact-finder, noting that it assessed the credibility of witnesses and the dynamic nature of the situation through video evidence. The court's decision hinged on whether the state met its burden of proof, which was deemed a fact-like question deserving significant deference.

The discussion also touched on the legal implications of the case, particularly regarding the proportionality and immediacy of the force used by the coach involved. The court grappled with mixed questions of law and fact, indicating that while the burden of proof is fact-based, the application of law to those facts is a legal question.

As the justices deliberated, they acknowledged the complexities of the case, particularly in how the appellate court should review the trial court's findings. The conversation underscored the necessity for a nuanced understanding of the clear and convincing evidence standard, which differs from the reasonable doubt standard typically applied in criminal cases.

This hearing marks a significant moment in clarifying the standards of evidence in cases involving the justification of force, with potential implications for future legal interpretations in Utah. The court's decision will likely set a precedent for how similar cases are approached, emphasizing the delicate balance between legal standards and factual determinations.