§ Rule 303. Presumptions in General in Criminal Cases
Rule 303. Presumptions in General in Criminal Cases
(a) Effect.
(1) Presumptions Directed Against an Accused. In all criminal cases when not otherwise provided for by statute, by these rules or by judicial decision, a presumption directed against the accused imposes no burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption and does not shift to the accused the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. However, if the accused fails to offer evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, the court must instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, infer the existence of the presumed fact from the proved fact, but no mention of the word “presumption” shall be made to the jury. If the accused offers evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, the court may instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, infer the existence of the presumed fact from the proved fact, but no mention of the word “presumption” shall be made to the jury.
(2) Presumptions Directed Against the Government. In all criminal cases when not otherwise provided for by statute, by these rules, or by judicial decision, a presumption directed against the government shall be treated in the same manner as a presumption in a civil case under Rule 301.
(b) Prima Facie Evidence. A statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a presumption within the meaning of this rule.
(c) Inconsistent Presumptions. If two presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the court shall apply the presumption which is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic. If there is no such preponderance, both presumptions shall be disregarded.