Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allengreen2 sentences1999Ulster County, 442 U.S. at 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 . 1999Ulster County, 442 U.S. at 157 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 . | 1 | 3 |
Garner v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2005During trial, the defense stipulated with the state that if the appropriate personnel from the forensic laboratory were called to testify, that person would testify that the container containing the vaginal swab from the rape kit of K. leaked and the evidence was destroyed. [30] The defendant, thus, presents no evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecution and, consequently, no due process rights are implicated. [31] The defendant further claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for a permissive instruction regarding the impact of the state's destruction of evidence. [32 | 1 | 1 |
Brewington v. Woodardgreen2 sentences2005During trial, the defense stipulated with the state that if the appropriate personnel from the forensic laboratory were called to testify, that person would testify that the container containing the vaginal swab from the rape kit of K. leaked and the evidence was destroyed. [30] The defendant, thus, presents no evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecution and, consequently, no due process rights are implicated. [31] The defendant further claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for a permissive instruction regarding the impact of the state's destruction of evidence. [32 2005During trial, the defense stipulated with the state that if the appropriate personnel from the forensic laboratory were called to testify, that person would testify that the container containing the vaginal swab from the rape kit of K. leaked and the evidence was destroyed. [30] The defendant, thus, presents no evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecution and, consequently, no due process rights are implicated. [31] The defendant further claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for a permissive instruction regarding the impact of the state's destruction of evidence. [32 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coxgreen1 sentence1986State v. Freeman, 411 So.2d 1068, 1072 (La.1982); State v. Cox, 344 So.2d 1024, 1025 (La.1977) Accordingly, we conclude that R.S. 14:71(A)(2) must be construed to establish a permissive presumption allowing the jury to be told that it may, but need not, find that the defendant possessed the intent to defraud based upon the basic facts set out in the statute. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Freemangreen1 sentence1986State v. Freeman, 411 So.2d 1068, 1072 (La.1982); State v. Cox, 344 So.2d 1024, 1025 (La.1977) Accordingly, we conclude that R.S. 14:71(A)(2) must be construed to establish a permissive presumption allowing the jury to be told that it may, but need not, find that the defendant possessed the intent to defraud based upon the basic facts set out in the statute. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grahamgreen1 sentence1979A similar "consent" statute in Massachusetts recently withstood a procedural due process attack in the Supreme Court, Mackey v. Montrym, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2612 , 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979). [5] The mandatory presumption, with its possible facial invalidity, is contrasted by the court with the permissive presumption, the validity of which may depend upon the facts of a particular case or the manner in which it is sought to be used therein, 99 S.Ct. 2224 (citations omitted): "The most common evidentiary device is the entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows—but does not require | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1979A similar "consent" statute in Massachusetts recently withstood a procedural due process attack in the Supreme Court, Mackey v. Montrym, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2612 , 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979). [5] The mandatory presumption, with its possible facial invalidity, is contrasted by the court with the permissive presumption, the validity of which may depend upon the facts of a particular case or the manner in which it is sought to be used therein, 99 S.Ct. 2224 (citations omitted): "The most common evidentiary device is the entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows—but does not require | 1 | 1 |
State v. Batistegreen1 sentence1979A similar "consent" statute in Massachusetts recently withstood a procedural due process attack in the Supreme Court, Mackey v. Montrym, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2612 , 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979). [5] The mandatory presumption, with its possible facial invalidity, is contrasted by the court with the permissive presumption, the validity of which may depend upon the facts of a particular case or the manner in which it is sought to be used therein, 99 S.Ct. 2224 (citations omitted): "The most common evidentiary device is the entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows—but does not require | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lindsey
green
2 sentences2014Stated another way, “[b]ecause a permissive presumption leaves the trier of fact free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of proof, it affects the application of the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard only if, under the facts of the case, there is no rational |sway a trier could make the connection permitted by the inference.” Id. at 376 . 2014“A permissive presumption will generally be upheld unless there is no rational way that the finder of fact could make the connection permitted by the inference.” Id. | 6 | 1987–2020 |
State v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2005During trial, the defense stipulated with the state that if the appropriate personnel from the forensic laboratory were called to testify, that person would testify that the container containing the vaginal swab from the rape kit of K. leaked and the evidence was destroyed. [30] The defendant, thus, presents no evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecution and, consequently, no due process rights are implicated. [31] The defendant further claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for a permissive instruction regarding the impact of the state's destruction of evidence. [32 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Lollar
green
1 sentence1999But as pointed out above, significant *1174 problems may occur if the judge instructs the jury by quoting the statutory language without explanation, perhaps misleading the jury into believing that a permissive presumption either is sufficient evidence either to prove intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt or to shift the burden to the defendant to prove his lack of intent to defraud. [3] See State v. Lollar, 389 So.2d 1315 (La.1980) (Lemmon, J., Concurring). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences1999The Legislature, after Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979) and County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979), perhaps attempted to remedy statutes which contained presumptions by declaring that the presumptions were "only presumptive evidence." It would have been far preferable to simply remove permissive presumptions from the statutes. 1999The Legislature, after Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979) and County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979), perhaps attempted to remedy statutes which contained presumptions by declaring that the presumptions were "only presumptive evidence." It would have been far preferable to simply remove permissive presumptions from the statutes. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1979Most recently, this court has held that the presumption of La.R.S. 32:622(A)1(c) is a rebuttable one, State v. Williams, 354 So.2d 152 (La.1977), since La.R.S. 32:662(C) states that the provisions of that section shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question whether the person was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. [7] While it was previously considered to be a rebuttable presumption, State v. Nix, 31 So.2d 1 (La. 1947), the presumption of criminal negligence from proven violation of a statute, has recently been held by t | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Nix
green
1 sentence1979Most recently, this court has held that the presumption of La.R.S. 32:622(A)1(c) is a rebuttable one, State v. Williams, 354 So.2d 152 (La.1977), since La.R.S. 32:662(C) states that the provisions of that section shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question whether the person was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. [7] While it was previously considered to be a rebuttable presumption, State v. Nix, 31 So.2d 1 (La. 1947), the presumption of criminal negligence from proven violation of a statute, has recently been held by t | 1 | 1979–1979 |
MacKey v. Montrym
green
2 sentences1979A similar "consent" statute in Massachusetts recently withstood a procedural due process attack in the Supreme Court, Mackey v. Montrym, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2612 , 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979). [5] The mandatory presumption, with its possible facial invalidity, is contrasted by the court with the permissive presumption, the validity of which may depend upon the facts of a particular case or the manner in which it is sought to be used therein, 99 S.Ct. 2224 (citations omitted): "The most common evidentiary device is the entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows—but does not require 1979A similar "consent" statute in Massachusetts recently withstood a procedural due process attack in the Supreme Court, Mackey v. Montrym, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S.Ct. 2612 , 61 L.Ed.2d 321 (1979). [5] The mandatory presumption, with its possible facial invalidity, is contrasted by the court with the permissive presumption, the validity of which may depend upon the facts of a particular case or the manner in which it is sought to be used therein, 99 S.Ct. 2224 (citations omitted): "The most common evidentiary device is the entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows—but does not require | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.