NCJ Number
114252
Journal
University of Miami Law Review Volume: 42 Issue: 4-5 Dated: special issue (March-May 1988) Pages: 1009-1032
Date Published
1988
Length
24 pages
Annotation
The theorectical distinction between permissive and mandatory presumptions, as created by the case of County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, has resulted in much confusion and serves no practical purpose.
Abstract
State prisoners in the Allen case had sought a writ of habeas corpus, contending that they had been denied due process through the application of New York's statutory presumption that the presence of a firearm in an automobile is evidence of illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by all occupants. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the presumption because it was permissive rather than mandatory and therefore did not undermine the factfinder's responsibility at trial regarding the burden of proof. However, mandatory presumptions do shift the burden of producing evidence to the defendant. Other court decisions make it clear that the burden of persuasion may not be shifted to the defendant on an element of a crime. Thus, one part of the Allen decision is clearly incorrect, and another part is also probably unconstitutional. Mandatory presumptions confuse the jury and jeopardize the rights of the accused without serving any purpose that cannot be accomplished through other evidentiary devices like affirmative defenses. 185 footnotes.