Understood CWOFD.

Does the appeal court not correct errors that occurred during the fact finding process? 

Evidently the trial judge determined there was reasonable doubt that she may have consented while competent to give consent.  Cannot the appeal court determine that such doubt was not reasonable and overturn the verdict, if the trial judge is found to have not adequately examined each step in the process from assumed competence, through growing incoherence to completely passed out?  We're talking about the last 11 minutes before being comatose, and the cabbie's ability to draw reasonable conclusions about whatever the woman said to him.  

If the woman issued a solicitous invitation immediately upon entering the cab, the cabbie's behaviour, while loathsome, may not have crossed the criminal threshold.  If the story line includes time for a conversation leading to consent, his conduct appears less likely to make space for a reasonable doubt.  He's apparently not talking!