§ 5.02 DEFINITIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 5.02. DEFINITIONS OF PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES

Much of the confusion surrounding the law of presumptions arises from a lack of precise terminology.

Conclusive presumptions. Rule 301 governs only rebuttable presumptions. Conclusive or irrebuttable presumptions actually involve substantive rules of law and are therefore beyond the scope of the Rules of Evidence. For example, the common law rule that a child under seven years is conclusively presumed incapable of committing a crime is a substantive rule of criminal law, which the parties may not rebut. To call this rule a presumption serves no purpose, except perhaps to confuse.⁴

Rebuttable presumptions. A "presumption is not evidence."⁵ Rather, a presumption, as that term is used in Rule 301, is a procedural rule that defines the relationship between two facts — a basic fact and a presumed fact.⁶ If the basic fact is proved, the presumed fact must be accepted as established unless and until rebutted. For example, if a letter is properly addressed and mailed (basic facts), it must be accepted that the letter was received (presumed fact), unless sufficient evidence is introduced to rebut the presumed fact.⁷ A presumption is mandatory; the presumed fact must be accepted once the basic fact is established.

Inferences. In contrast to a presumption, an inference, which also involves a relationship between two facts, is permissive. For example, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur usually involves an inference of negligence.⁸ Establishment of the basic facts permits, but does not compel, a conclusion of negligence.⁹ Nevertheless, such a standardized inference does serve the purpose of satisfying a plaintiff's burden of production on the issue of negligence.

Other terms. Various labels have been used to describe presumptions — for example, "mandatory inferences" and "presumptions of law." Similarly, inferences have been called "permissive presumptions" and "presumptions of fact." These alternative terms add nothing but confusion and should be avoided.

Prima facie. The term "prima facie" evidence, frequently encountered in this context, is often ambiguous, and care must be taken to discern exactly how it is being used in a particular case.¹⁰ Perhaps the term is most often used to describe the burden of production; a party that has "made out a prima facie case" has satisfied its burden of production and therefore should not suffer a directed verdict.

--------

Notes:

^[4] See People v. McCall, 82 P.3d 351, 358 (Cal...