County Court of Ulster County v. Allen
(1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The constitutionality of a permissive statutory presumption in a criminal case, which allows but does not require a trier of fact to infer an element of a crime, must be evaluated as-applied to the particular facts of the case. Such a presumption is constitutional if there is a rational connection between the basic facts proven and the ultimate fact presumed, such that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proven facts.
Facts:
- Three adult males (respondents) and a 16-year-old girl, Jane Doe, were stopped for speeding on the New York Thruway while riding in a borrowed Chevrolet.
- An investigating police officer observed two large-caliber handguns through the car window.
- The handguns were positioned crosswise in an open handbag located on either the front floor or the front seat where Jane Doe was sitting.
- Jane Doe admitted that the handbag was hers.
- The guns were too large to be fully concealed in the handbag, causing it to remain open with a portion of one gun in plain view and accessible to the other occupants.
- A machine gun and heroin were later found in the car's trunk, which police had to pry open as no key could be found.
Procedural Posture:
- The three respondents and Jane Doe were jointly tried and convicted of criminal possession of handguns by a jury in a New York trial court.
- The defendants' post-trial motion challenging the constitutionality of the statutory presumption was denied by the trial court.
- The convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, affirmed the convictions, rejecting the defendants' constitutional challenge on the merits.
- Respondents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted the writ, finding the presumption's application unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, but on the broader ground that the New York statute was unconstitutional on its face.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the holdings of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York statute that creates a permissive presumption that all occupants of a vehicle possess a firearm found inside it violate the Due Process Clause as applied to defendants in a case where the firearms were in plain view and other evidence suggested shared access and control?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stevens
No. The permissive statutory presumption does not violate the Due Process Clause as applied to these facts. A critical distinction exists between permissive presumptions, which a jury is free to accept or reject, and mandatory presumptions, which a jury must accept. While mandatory presumptions must be evaluated for facial constitutionality, permissive presumptions are properly analyzed on an as-applied basis. In this case, the trial judge's instructions made clear the presumption was permissive, allowing the jury to consider all circumstances. Given the facts—that two large handguns were in plain view in an open handbag, accessible to all occupants, and it was highly improbable a 16-year-old girl was the sole possessor—there is a 'rational connection' between the proved fact (presence in the car) and the presumed fact (possession of the guns). The presumed fact was 'more likely than not to flow from' the proved fact, satisfying the standard set in Leary v. United States, and thus the application of the presumption was constitutional.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes. The presumption as charged to the jury violates the Due Process Clause. The inference that mere presence in an automobile makes it 'more likely than not' that an individual possesses a weapon found inside is contrary to common sense and experience. The majority's as-applied analysis is flawed because the jury was instructed that it could infer possession from the mere fact of presence, without regard to any other evidence. The Court should assume the jury relied solely on this irrational inference, rendering the conviction unconstitutional. The proper inquiry is whether the evidence necessary to invoke the inference is sufficient to support it, not whether all the evidence in the record supports the conviction. By relying on the entire record, the majority creates a new rule that permits any irrational inference as long as there is otherwise sufficient evidence of guilt, effectively applying an unarticulated harmless-error standard.
Concurring - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No. The presumption is constitutional as applied. The central facts of the case are controlling. The handguns were in such plain view that the police officer could see them from outside the car. It is reasonable for jurors to conclude that passengers inside the car could hardly miss seeing what was visible from the outside. The jury could have reasonably reached the same result without the statutory presumption.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial framework for analyzing the constitutionality of statutory presumptions in criminal law, creating a sharp distinction between permissive and mandatory presumptions. By holding that permissive presumptions are subject to a more lenient, as-applied 'rational connection' test, the Court gives prosecutors greater flexibility. This decision means that the validity of a permissive presumption hinges not on its abstract logic, but on the strength of the entire evidentiary record in a specific case. This approach contrasts sharply with the facial analysis required for mandatory presumptions, significantly impacting how such evidentiary devices can be challenged and defended in future criminal litigation.
