Also known as: permissive inferences
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary device that permits but does not require a factfinder to conclude that a presumed fact exists upon proof of a basic fact. The device leaves the factfinder free to accept or reject the conclusion and imposes no burden on the defendant.
Patrick Phan withdrew a letter opener from his briefcase and drove it into his supervisor's chest during a performance review. The wound was to a vital area and caused immediate collapse. The factfinder may conclude from the intentional use of the instrument that Patrick acted with intent to kill, though it remains free to reject that conclusion after considering all evidence.
Preston Pratt fired a pistol at close range into his coworker's torso after a workplace dispute. The trial court instructed the jury that it could but was not required to infer intent to kill from the shooting. The jury remained free to accept or reject the inference after weighing the full record.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Penelope Price and three companions were stopped while riding in a car containing two handguns on the seat. The prosecution asked the jury to infer that all occupants possessed the weapons. The jury could draw that inference from the basic facts but was not compelled to do so.
Pavel Petrov struck his roommate repeatedly with a heavy object during an argument. The court told the jury that the law presumes a person intends the ordinary consequences of voluntary acts. The instruction was evaluated to determine whether it created only a permissive inference or crossed into a mandatory presumption.
Pearl Porter stabbed her supervisor multiple times after learning of her termination. The trial court instructed the jury that it could infer the acts of a person of sound mind were the product of that person's will. The instruction created a permissive inference that left the jury free to decide whether intent existed.
Paige Porter participated in burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family. The prosecution sought to link the act to an intent to intimidate. The factfinder could draw an inference of intent from the conduct but remained free to reject it based on the complete evidence.
A permissive inference allows the factfinder to conclude that the presumed fact exists but does not require that conclusion. A mandatory presumption directs the factfinder to reach the conclusion once the basic fact is proved and therefore shifts a burden to the defendant.
Supporting sources
A factfinder may draw the inference when the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon in a manner calculated or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The inference is not required and the factfinder must still find the element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
No. The device places no burden of production or persuasion on the defendant and leaves the ultimate burden on the prosecution to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
Even though they do not shift a burden, an inference must still rest on a rational connection between the basic fact and the presumed fact so that it does not undermine the prosecution's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
…a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction. Respondent argues, first, that the instruction merely described a permissive inference—that is, it allowed but did not require the jury to draw conclusions about defendant's intent from his actions—and that such inferences are constitutional. Brief for Respondent 3, 15. These…