Also known as: permissive inference · permissive-inference · permissive inference rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that permits but does not require the factfinder to infer an elemental fact from the existence of a basic fact. The inference is available when the elemental fact is more likely than not to follow from the basic fact under the circumstances of the case.
Patrick Phan grabbed a chef's knife during an argument with Pearl Porter and thrust it toward her chest. The jury heard evidence that the thrust was deliberate and aimed at a vital area. It may therefore infer that Patrick intended to kill Pearl even though he later claimed he meant only to strike the counter.
Preston Pratt was found with recently stolen electronics in his car and offered no explanation. The jury may infer that Preston knew the items were stolen because possession of recently stolen property ordinarily supports that conclusion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paula Pierce fired a handgun at Pierce Patterson's torso from close range during a confrontation. The jury may infer that Paula intended to kill Pierce because the natural and probable consequence of that act is death or serious injury.
Phuong Pham burned a cross on the lawn of a neighbor's home after a heated dispute. The jury may infer that Phuong intended to threaten the neighbor because the act of cross burning in that context ordinarily conveys a message of intimidation.
Prime Logistics employees moved a heavy crate onto a loading dock knowing it would block a doorway. The jury may infer that the employees intended the ordinary consequences of their acts when the crate later caused injury.
Paragon Construction received a shipment of tools that had been reported stolen the day before. The jury may infer that the company knew the tools were stolen because unexplained possession of recently stolen property supports that conclusion.
A permissive inference allows the jury to draw a conclusion from proven facts but does not require it. A mandatory presumption either directs the jury to find the elemental fact or shifts the burden of persuasion to the defendant, which violates due process.
Supporting sources
A permissive inference satisfies due process when the elemental fact is more likely than not to follow from the basic fact under the circumstances of the case.
Supporting sources
No. A defendant's self-serving statement that he lacked intent goes only to the weight and credibility of the evidence. The jury remains free to draw the inference from the proven facts.
Supporting sources
Yes. The jury may still infer intent to kill from the intentional use of an instrument in a manner likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, regardless of the defendant's later explanation.
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…