§ Rule 307 Presumptions in Criminal Cases
Rule 307. Presumptions in Criminal Cases
(a) Scope. Except as otherwise provided by statute, in criminal cases, presumptions or inferences 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.
(b) Submission to Jury. All presumptions and inferences in criminal cases are permissive. The trier of fact is free to accept or reject the presumption or inference in each case, and the judge is not authorized to direct the jury to find a fact against the accused. When a fact that is the subject of a statutory or common law presumption or inference (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 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.
(c) Instructing the Jury. The court should avoid charging in terms of a presumption. 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 reasonably infer the presumed fact from the basic facts 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.