(1) Except as otherwise provided by statute, in criminal cases, presumptions against an accused, recognized at common law or created by statute, including statutory provisions that certain facts are prima facie evidence of other facts or of guilt, are governed by this rule.
(2) The judge is not authorized to direct the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused. When the presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negatives a defense, the judge may submit the question of guilt or of the existence of the presumed fact to the jury, if, but only if, a reasonable juror on the evidence as a whole, including the evidence of the basic facts, could find guilt or the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt. When the presumed fact has a lesser effect, its existence may be submitted to the jury if the basic facts are supported by substantial evidence, or are otherwise established, unless the evidence as a whole negatives the existence of the presumed fact.
(3) Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused is submitted to the jury, the judge shall give an instruction that the law declares that the jury may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but does not require it to do so. In addition, if the presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negatives a defense, the judge shall instruct the jury that its existence must, on all the evidence, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1944–2018 · leading case:
State v. Ely, 889 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 2017).
State v. Ely, 889 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 6× “References to “presumptions” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303 (Reissue 2016) necessarily include “inferences.”
State v. Parks, 511 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 1994).
· cites it 18× “) Because § 27-303 is entitled "Presumptions in criminal cases" and refers to "presumed facts," while the challenged instruction is based on a common-law inference, it is necessary to first determine whether § 27-303 applies to inferences.”
State v. Stalder, 438 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 13× “Whether § 27-303 be construed to refer to presumptions or to permitted inferences, it is clear that § 27-303 should be applied when a jury is instructed as to § 28-1212, as in this case.”
State v. Botts, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 544 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “The Stalder court stated that when instructions are given as to presumptions in a criminal case, those instructions must conform to the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303 (3) (Reissue 1985), which provided, as it now provides: Whenever the existence of a presumed fact…”
State v. Jasper, 467 N.W.2d 855 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 2× “303(3), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303 (3) (Reissue 1989), which states: Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the *766 accused is submitted to the jury, the judge shall give an instruction that the law declares that the jury may regard the basic facts as sufficient…”
State v. Blackson, 487 N.W.2d 580 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-1212 (Reissue 1989) that all individuals in a motor vehicle are in possession of or are carrying any firearm found in that vehicle, the trial court in effect directed a verdict against the appellant.”
Maher v. State, 13 N.W.2d 641 (Neb. 1944).
· cites it 2× “Our statute, section 27-303, Comp. St. Supp. 1941, does not require that such request be in writing.”
People v. Watts, 692 N.E.2d 315 (Ill. 1998).
“, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-303(2) (1997) ("The judge is not authorized to direct the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused"); Haw.”
In Re Interest of Hollenbeck, 322 N.W.2d 635 (Neb. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The appellant next assigns as error that the trial court erred in applying Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303 (Reissue 1979) of the “Criminal Rule of Evidence to form basis for its adjudication order to custody matters civil in nature and using past patterns of behaviour to demonstrate…”
Iron Bear v. Jones, 32 N.W.2d 125 (Neb. 1948).
· cites it 2× “1943, does not require a request to be in writing to enable a district judge of one district to hold court in any other district. “The power of a district judge to hold court in a district other than that for which he was elected does not depend upon the absence or disability of…”
State v. Botts, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 544 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “§ 27-303 (3) (Reissue 1985), which provided, as it now provides: Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused is submitted to the jury, the judge shall give an instruction that the law declares that the jury may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of…”
Mueller v. Keeley, 80 N.W.2d 707 (Neb. 1957).
“That provision was *616 amended, in 1935 so as to provide in part: “All terms of the district court shall be held at the county seat in the court house, or other place provided by the county board, but nothing herein contained shall preclude the district court, or a judge…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303(1): 1 case
State v. Stalder, 438 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. 1989).
“Whether § 27-303 be construed to refer to presumptions or to permitted inferences, it is clear that § 27-303 should be applied when a jury is instructed as to § 28-1212, as in this case.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303(2): 1 case
People v. Watts, 692 N.E.2d 315 (Ill. 1998).
“, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-303(2) (1997) ("The judge is not authorized to direct the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused"); Haw.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303(3): 4 cases
State v. Parks, 511 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 1994).
“) Because § 27-303 is entitled "Presumptions in criminal cases" and refers to "presumed facts," while the challenged instruction is based on a common-law inference, it is necessary to first determine whether § 27-303 applies to inferences.”
State v. Stalder, 438 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. 1989).
“Whether § 27-303 be construed to refer to presumptions or to permitted inferences, it is clear that § 27-303 should be applied when a jury is instructed as to § 28-1212, as in this case.”
State v. Botts, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 544 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
“The Stalder court stated that when instructions are given as to presumptions in a criminal case, those instructions must conform to the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-303 (3) (Reissue 1985), which provided, as it now provides: Whenever the existence of a presumed fact…”
State v. Botts, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 544 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 27-303 (3) (Reissue 1985), which provided, as it now provides: Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused is submitted to the jury, the judge shall give an instruction that the law declares that the jury may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.