County of Ulster v. Allen

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Evidence

Evidencedue processstatutory presumptionpermissive inferencemandatory presumptionrational connectionmore likely than nothabeas corpus

Facts

New York law provided that the presence of a firearm in an automobile is presumptive evidence of its possession by all occupants, subject to certain exceptions. Respondents were three adult male occupants of a car in which police, after a traffic stop, saw two loaded handguns in an open handbag on the front passenger side where a 16-year-old girl was sitting; the guns were large, the bag was open, and part of one gun was visible. The trial judge instructed the jury that it could infer possession from presence in the car, and the jury convicted all four occupants of possessing the handguns but acquitted them of possessing a machinegun and heroin found in the trunk. Respondents challenged the presumption in post-trial proceedings and later in federal habeas corpus.

Issue

Whether federal habeas courts could reach respondents' constitutional challenge to the New York automobile-firearm presumption; whether the court of appeals properly declared the statute facially unconstitutional; and whether the presumption, as applied to these respondents, violated due process.

Rule

A permissive presumption in a criminal case is constitutional if it leaves the trier of fact free to accept or reject the inference, does not shift the burden of proof, and, under the facts of the case, there is a rational way for the trier to make the connection between the basic and elemental facts. Facial analysis is generally appropriate for mandatory presumptions, but a purely permissive presumption must be tested as applied; for such a presumption, due process is satisfied if there is a rational connection and the inferred fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a felony trial in Ohio, the prosecution relies on a statute stating that the presence of burglary tools in a van is presumptive evidence of possession by all occupants. The judge instructs the jury that it may, but need not, infer possession from presence, must consider all the evidence, and may acquit unless the State proves possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

If one occupant argues the instruction violated due process solely because the statute uses the word "presumptive," what is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority distinguished a permissive inference from a mandatory presumption by focusing on how the jury was instructed. If the jury is told it may accept or reject the inference, must consider all the evidence, and the State retains the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, due process is not violated unless there is no rational way to make the connection on the facts of the case. The statutory label alone does not control.