NRS
47.230 Presumptions against accused in criminal actions.
1. In criminal actions, 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 section.
2. The judge shall not 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. Under other presumptions, the existence of the presumed fact
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.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
779)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Thompson v. State, 838 P.2d 452 (Nev. 1992).
Thompson v. State, 838 P.2d 452 (Nev. 1992).
· cites it 24× “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…”
Hollis v. State, 606 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 10× “Over appellant’s objection, 1 the court gave the following instruction: Every person who shall unlawfully enter any warehouse, store, or other building shall be deemed to have entered the same with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or a felony therein, unless such…”
Brackeen v. State, 763 P.2d 59 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 10× “NRS 47.230 states in pertinent part that: 1.”
Manning v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 659 P.2d 847 (Nev. 1983).
· cites it 6× “" Manning first contends that the giving of this instruction was a violation of NRS 47.230 which prohibits the judge from directing the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused.”
Ford v. State, 660 P.2d 992 (Nev. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Appellant contends that this instruction violates NRS 47.230 which sets forth general guidelines as to the presumptions against the accused in criminal cases.”
Collman v. State, 7 P.3d 426 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Traditionally, this court has held that "violations of NRS 47.230 will not be deemed harmless where the erroneous instruction concerns an essential element of the offense charged.”
Albitre v. State, 738 P.2d 1307 (Nev. 1987).
· cites it 2× “I am not prepared to say that the instruction in this case violates NRS 47.230 or that it is contrary to our holdings in the cited cases, but it is very close, and the mere use of the word "rebuttable" and the court's indicating to the jury that evidence must raise a reasonable…”
Ogden v. State, 607 P.2d 576 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Jury Instruction Number 12 stated, "You are instructed that a person with a mind capable of knowing right from wrong must be regarded as capable of entertaining intent and of deliberating and premeditating." (Emphasis added.) Appellant argues that this instruction created a…”
Long v. State, 853 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1993).
· cites it 6× “9 was prejudicial because it did not include an instruction on reasonable doubt pursuant to NRS 47.230. 3 *527 NRS 484.381 provides in pertinent part: 1.”
Ford v. State, 717 P.2d 27 (Nev. 1986).
“” NRS 47.230(2). The presumption of sanity is not rebutted merely by a history of prior institutional commitments or diagnoses of mental deficiency or derangement.”
Marshall v. State, 603 P.2d 283 (Nev. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, NRS 47.230(2) commands that a judge shall not direct the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused.”
Clark v. State, 588 P.2d 1027 (Nev. 1979).
“250) and its effect in a criminal action is governed by NRS 47.230(2) which provides in part: *28 [T]he existence of the presumed fact may be submitted to the jury if the basic facts are supported by substantial evidence, or are otherwise established, unless the evidence as a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.230(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.230(2) — 14 cases
Thompson v. State, 838 P.2d 452 (Nev. 1992).
“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…”
Brackeen v. State, 763 P.2d 59 (Nev. 1988).
“NRS 47.230 states in pertinent part that: 1.”
Ogden v. State, 607 P.2d 576 (Nev. 1980).
“Jury Instruction Number 12 stated, "You are instructed that a person with a mind capable of knowing right from wrong must be regarded as capable of entertaining intent and of deliberating and premeditating." (Emphasis added.) Appellant argues that this instruction created a…”
Ford v. State, 717 P.2d 27 (Nev. 1986).
“” NRS 47.230(2). The presumption of sanity is not rebutted merely by a history of prior institutional commitments or diagnoses of mental deficiency or derangement.”
Marshall v. State, 603 P.2d 283 (Nev. 1979).
“Indeed, NRS 47.230(2) commands that a judge shall not direct the jury to find a presumed fact against the accused.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.230(3) — 10 cases
Thompson v. State, 838 P.2d 452 (Nev. 1992).
“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…”
Brackeen v. State, 763 P.2d 59 (Nev. 1988).
“NRS 47.230 states in pertinent part that: 1.”
Ford v. State, 660 P.2d 992 (Nev. 1983).
“Appellant contends that this instruction violates NRS 47.230 which sets forth general guidelines as to the presumptions against the accused in criminal cases.”
Hollis v. State, 606 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1980).
“Over appellant’s objection, 1 the court gave the following instruction: Every person who shall unlawfully enter any warehouse, store, or other building shall be deemed to have entered the same with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny or a felony therein, unless such…”
Long v. State, 853 P.2d 112 (Nev. 1993).
“9 was prejudicial because it did not include an instruction on reasonable doubt pursuant to NRS 47.230. 3 *527 NRS 484.381 provides in pertinent part: 1.”
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.