Also known as: permissible inferences · permissive inference
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary device by which a factfinder may but is not required to conclude that one fact exists upon proof of another fact. The device supplies no shift in the burden of proof or persuasion and leaves the trier of fact free to accept or reject the connection.
Pedro Pacheco lunged at Pablo Perez during a dispute and stabbed him repeatedly in the chest with a fixed-blade knife. The prosecution introduced evidence of the intentional stabbing. The jury was permitted to conclude from that act alone that Pedro acted with intent to kill.
Four passengers rode in a car stopped by police. Officers found a loaded handgun on the floor near the front passenger. The trial court instructed the jury that it could but need not infer each occupant knowingly possessed the weapon. The instruction left the jury free to reject the connection after weighing all the evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pilar Pena sued Phoenix Technologies for defamation. She offered documents and testimony that permitted an inference of actual malice. The district court denied summary judgment because a reasonable jury could draw that inference from the circumstantial proof.
Penelope Price filed for divorce in Iowa after living there only four months. The state invoked its one-year residency rule. The court upheld the statute in part because the residency period supported a permissible inference that the petitioner had formed genuine ties to the forum.
Paige Porter was prosecuted under a statute that treated cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. The Court held the provision unconstitutional because it converted a permissible inference into a mandatory presumption that relieved the state of its burden.
Pierce Patterson killed his wife after she taunted him about an affair. He claimed the killing occurred in the heat of passion. The trial court instructed the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon but remained free to find the provocation adequate and reduce the offense to manslaughter.
A permissible inference allows the factfinder to accept or reject the connection between the proven fact and the inferred fact. A mandatory presumption requires the factfinder to accept the connection unless rebutted and may shift the burden of proof.
Supporting sources
Res ipsa loquitur creates only a permissible inference. The jury may but is not required to conclude that the defendant was negligent when the event is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence and other causes are sufficiently eliminated.
Supporting sources
The factfinder may draw a permissive inference that the person intended to kill. The inference is not required and does not relieve the prosecution of proving malice beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
The judge decides as a matter of law whether the evidence permits a reasonable jury to draw the inference. If the judge finds the inference available, the jury then decides whether to draw it on the facts of the case.
Supporting sources
…granted. The State's decision to exact a one-year residency requirement as a matter of policy is therefore buttressed by a quite permissible inference that this requirement not only effectuates state substantive policy but likewise provides a greater safeguard against successful collateral attack than would a requirement of bona fide…