A. Except as otherwise provided by act of the Legislature, this statute governs presumptions against an accused, in a criminal case, recognized at common law or created by statute, including statutory provisions that certain facts are prima facie evidence of other facts or of guilt. B. The court shall not direct the jury to find a presumed fact against an accused. If a presumed fact establishes guilt, is an element of the offense, or negates a defense, the court may submit the question of guilt or of the existence of the presumed fact to the jury, if a reasonable juror considering the evidence as a whole, including the evidence of the basic facts, could find guilt or the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt. If 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 negates the existence of the presumed fact. C. Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused establishes guilt or is an element of the offense or negatives a defense and is submitted to the jury, the judge shall
give an instruction explaining that the jury may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but is not required to do so. Where the presumed fact establishes guilt, is an element of the offense or negatives a defense, the judge also shall instruct the jury that its existence, on all the evidence, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 304, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 29, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1981–2005 · leading case:
Patton v. Mullin, 425 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2005).
Patton v. Mullin, 425 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2005).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2304 (C). Unfortunately, however, the trial court did not provide such an instruction to the jury in Patton’s case, and Patton's defense counsel did not make a request for such an instruction.”
Patton v. State, 1998 OK CR 66, 973 P.2d 270.
“¶ 51 In the alternative, Appellant argues counsel was ineffective as no objection was made to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury under 12 O.S.1991, § 2304(C). That section provides: ■ Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused establishes guilt or…”
Knighton v. State, 912 P.2d 878 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
“The probative value of the evidence of each of these crimes is not substantially outweighed by the dangers cited in 12 O.S.1981, § 2304. This evidence was properly admitted.”
Henager v. State, 716 P.2d 669 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
“Title 12 O.S.1981, § 2304(C). However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, I do not believe the appellant was prejudiced by the error.”
Hall v. State, 635 P.2d 618 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
“The court may only submit the question of the existence of the presumed fact to the jury, if a reasonable juror considering the evidence as a whole, including the evidence of the basic facts, could find the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Wofford v. State, 646 P.2d 1300 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
“We point out, however, under the Oklahoma Evidence Code, Title 12 O.S.1981, § 2304, the trial court should caution the jury as to the legal use of presumptions.”
Birdine v. State, 2004 OK CR 7, 85 P.3d 284.
“; 12 O.S.Supp.2002, § 2304(C), (the judge shall inform the jury it “may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but is not required to do so.”
Hunter v. State, 740 P.2d 1206 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2304(C). In the instant case, no such explanatory instructions were given.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2304(C): 5 cases
Patton v. State, 1998 OK CR 66, 973 P.2d 270.
“¶ 51 In the alternative, Appellant argues counsel was ineffective as no objection was made to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury under 12 O.S.1991, § 2304(C). That section provides: ■ Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused establishes guilt or…”
Henager v. State, 716 P.2d 669 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
“Title 12 O.S.1981, § 2304(C). However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, I do not believe the appellant was prejudiced by the error.”
Hall v. State, 635 P.2d 618 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
“The court may only submit the question of the existence of the presumed fact to the jury, if a reasonable juror considering the evidence as a whole, including the evidence of the basic facts, could find the presumed fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Birdine v. State, 2004 OK CR 7, 85 P.3d 284.
“; 12 O.S.Supp.2002, § 2304(C), (the judge shall inform the jury it “may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but is not required to do so.”
Hunter v. State, 740 P.2d 1206 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2304(C). In the instant case, no such explanatory instructions were given.”
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.