mandatory rebuttable presumption in California

2004The high court observed that "when a mandatory rebuttable presumption is applied in a case with no rebutting evidence, [it] render[s] the presumption conclusive in its operation." ( Yates, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 406, fn. 10 , 111 S.Ct. 1884 .) The mandatory rebuttable presumptions addressed in Carella and Yates are analytically indistinct: both operated conclusively in the particular trial — in Carella due to instructional error, and in Yates due to the defendant's failure to rebut the presumption.

2004The high court observed that "when a mandatory rebuttable presumption is applied in a case with no rebutting evidence, [it] render[s] the presumption conclusive in its operation." ( Yates, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 406, fn. 10 , 111 S.Ct. 1884 .) The mandatory rebuttable presumptions addressed in Carella and Yates are analytically indistinct: both operated conclusively in the particular trial — in Carella due to instructional error, and in Yates due to the defendant's failure to rebut the presumption.

2024Barner may prove his sanity by showing, generally at the end of one year in an outpatient program, that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder. (§ 1026.2, subd. (e); see Dobson II, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1433 ; People v. Endsley, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 101 [restoration of sanity under § 1026.2 is the only route to release where the longest term of imprisonment is for life].) In general, a mandatory rebuttable presumption tells the trier of fact that, if a specified fact has been proven, then the trier of fact must find

2024Barner may prove his sanity by showing, generally at the end of one year in an outpatient program, that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder. (§ 1026.2, subd. (e); see Dobson II, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1433 ; People v. Endsley, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 101 [restoration of sanity under § 1026.2 is the only route to release where the longest term of imprisonment is for life].) In general, a mandatory rebuttable presumption tells the trier of fact that, if a specified fact has been proven, then the trier of fact must find

2024Barner may prove his sanity by showing, generally at the end of one year in an outpatient program, that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder. (§ 1026.2, subd. (e); see Dobson II, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1433 ; People v. Endsley, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 101 [restoration of sanity under § 1026.2 is the only route to release where the longest term of imprisonment is for life].) In general, a mandatory rebuttable presumption tells the trier of fact that, if a specified fact has been proven, then the trier of fact must find

2024Barner may prove his sanity by showing, generally at the end of one year in an outpatient program, that he is no longer a danger to the health and safety of others, due to mental defect, disease, or disorder. (§ 1026.2, subd. (e); see Dobson II, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1433 ; People v. Endsley, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 101 [restoration of sanity under § 1026.2 is the only route to release where the longest term of imprisonment is for life].) In general, a mandatory rebuttable presumption tells the trier of fact that, if a specified fact has been proven, then the trier of fact must find

2005(Evid.Code, § 600, subd. (a); People v. McCall (2004) 32 Cal.4th 175, 182 , 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 ; see also Ulster County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 .) Such presumptions may violate the defendant's right to due process in a criminal case, where the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption may have the effect of lessening this burden on the element to which it applies. ( McCall, at p. 183, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 .) Although an MDO proceeding is civil in nature, the People are required to

2005(Evid.Code, § 600, subd. (a); People v. McCall (2004) 32 Cal.4th 175, 182 , 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 ; see also Ulster County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 .) Such presumptions may violate the defendant's right to due process in a criminal case, where the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption may have the effect of lessening this burden on the element to which it applies. ( McCall, at p. 183, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 .) Although an MDO proceeding is civil in nature, the People are required to

2005(Evid.Code, § 600, subd. (a); People v. McCall (2004) 32 Cal.4th 175, 182 , 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 ; see also Ulster County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 .) Such presumptions may violate the defendant's right to due process in a criminal case, where the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption may have the effect of lessening this burden on the element to which it applies. ( McCall, at p. 183, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 .) Although an MDO proceeding is civil in nature, the People are required to

2005(Evid.Code, § 600, subd. (a); People v. McCall (2004) 32 Cal.4th 175, 182 , 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 ; see also Ulster County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 .) Such presumptions may violate the defendant's right to due process in a criminal case, where the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption may have the effect of lessening this burden on the element to which it applies. ( McCall, at p. 183, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 82 P.3d 351 .) Although an MDO proceeding is civil in nature, the People are required to

2023(Id. at p. 701; see also Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307, 317 [Mullaney “held unconstitutional a mandatory rebuttable presumption that shifted to the defendant a burden of persuasion on the question of intent”]; Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197, 215 [“Mullaney surely held that a State must prove every ingredient of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming that ingredient upon proof of the other elements of the offense”].) 71 PEOPLE v. THOMAS Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, J.

2023(Id. at p. 701; see also Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307, 317 [Mullaney “held unconstitutional a mandatory rebuttable presumption that shifted to the defendant a burden of persuasion on the question of intent”]; Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197, 215 [“Mullaney surely held that a State must prove every ingredient of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming that ingredient upon proof of the other elements of the offense”].) 71 PEOPLE v. THOMAS Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, J.

2015(See In re Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498 [“The presumption [under section 3044] is rebuttable, but the court must apply the presumption in any situation in which a finding of domestic violence has been made”].) In determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the statute directs that the trial court “shall consider all of the . . . factors” enumerated in section 3044, subdivision (b).

2007(Id. at p. 936.) However, Moore also cited the Use Note to CALJIC No. 16.152, which erroneously retained language from the time when the instruction provided for a mandatory rebuttable presumption: “Do not give this instruction if evidence has been, received tending to prove that the failure to provide was not willful or was not without lawful excuse.” (Use Note to CALJIC No. 16.152 (Spring 2007 ed.) p. 1092.) From this the court then concluded that as “the CALJIC Committee explains, the rebuttable presumption created by [Penal Code] section 270 is a presumption affecting the burden of produci

2007(Id. at p. 936.) However, Moore also cited the Use Note to CALJIC No. 16.152, which erroneously retained language from the time when the instruction provided for a mandatory rebuttable presumption: “Do not give this instruction if evidence has been, received tending to prove that the failure to provide was not willful or was not without lawful excuse.” (Use Note to CALJIC No. 16.152 (Spring 2007 ed.) p. 1092.) From this the court then concluded that as “the CALJIC Committee explains, the rebuttable presumption created by [Penal Code] section 270 is a presumption affecting the burden of produci

2006(People v. Laughlin (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1025, 1027-1028 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 737 ], citing People v. Pinkston (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 387 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 274 ] & People v. Williams (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1440 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 909 ].) The rule set forth in section 2800.2, subdivision (b)—that three or more point violations constitute willful and wanton disregard—“is not a mandatory rebuttable presumption but is instead a rule of substantive law.” (People v. Laughlin, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025 .) Three point violations are willful and wanton disregard by definition, so there is nothi

2006(People v. Laughlin (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1025, 1027-1028 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 737 ], citing People v. Pinkston (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 387 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 274 ] & People v. Williams (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1440 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 909 ].) The rule set forth in section 2800.2, subdivision (b)—that three or more point violations constitute willful and wanton disregard—“is not a mandatory rebuttable presumption but is instead a rule of substantive law.” (People v. Laughlin, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025 .) Three point violations are willful and wanton disregard by definition, so there is nothi

2004(See Ulster County, supra, 442 U.S. at p. 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 .) In deciding whether a rebuttable presumption in a criminal case is mandatory or permissive, "the jury instructions generally will be controlling, although their interpretation may require recourse to the statute involved and the cases decided under it." ( Ibid. ) Because a mandatory rebuttable presumption "tells the trier of fact that he or they must find the elemental fact upon proof of the basic fact, at least until the defendant has come forward with some evidence to rebut the presumed connection between the two facts," it is

2004(See Ulster County, supra, 442 U.S. at p. 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 .) In deciding whether a rebuttable presumption in a criminal case is mandatory or permissive, "the jury instructions generally will be controlling, although their interpretation may require recourse to the statute involved and the cases decided under it." ( Ibid. ) Because a mandatory rebuttable presumption "tells the trier of fact that he or they must find the elemental fact upon proof of the basic fact, at least until the defendant has come forward with some evidence to rebut the presumed connection between the two facts," it is