Which statement correctly describes the power granted by Sec 6, Rule 46 regarding hearings by the Court of Appeals?

Which statement correctly describes the power granted by Sec 6, Rule 46 regarding hearings by the Court of Appeals?

• A. It must always hear the case itself with no delegation.
• B. It can only delegate; cannot conduct a hearing.
• C. It may not conduct a hearing at all.
• D. It may conduct a hearing or delegate the reception of evidence to any of its members or to an appropriate agency or office.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that the Court of Appeals has flexible power to handle hearings and evidence. Under Sec 6, Rule 46, the court may either hold the hearing itself or delegate the reception of evidence to any of its members or to an appropriate agency or office. This allows the appellate court to move efficiently—it can directly hear the case when needed, or it can appoint a commissioner or send the task to a suitable agency to gather the necessary evidence and then have the court review it. This makes sense because appellate cases often require careful consideration of evidence, and delegating to a competent person or office can streamline the process without sacrificing fairness. The other options are too absolute or restrictive: insisting the court must always hear in person eliminates needed flexibility; saying it can only delegate and cannot hear itself is incorrect; and saying it may not conduct a hearing at all ignores the court’s authority to manage proceedings as appropriate.

The key idea is that the Court of Appeals has flexible power to handle hearings and evidence. Under Sec 6, Rule 46, the court may either hold the hearing itself or delegate the reception of evidence to any of its members or to an appropriate agency or office. This allows the appellate court to move efficiently—it can directly hear the case when needed, or it can appoint a commissioner or send the task to a suitable agency to gather the necessary evidence and then have the court review it.

This makes sense because appellate cases often require careful consideration of evidence, and delegating to a competent person or office can streamline the process without sacrificing fairness. The other options are too absolute or restrictive: insisting the court must always hear in person eliminates needed flexibility; saying it can only delegate and cannot hear itself is incorrect; and saying it may not conduct a hearing at all ignores the court’s authority to manage proceedings as appropriate.