A rebuttable presumption is an inference that arises from a rule of law or as a legal conclusion that is derived from a set of proven facts. See: Schuemann v. Menard, Inc.
A rebuttable presumption is not evidence itself, but courts consider it to be prima facie proof of a fact that can be disproven only by the opposing party’s production of sufficient contrary evidence.
A rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of persuasion to the party against whom the fact is raised. If the party cannot satisfy this burden by providing sufficient contrary evidence, the presumed facts are established as a matter of law. If the party can satisfy its burden, courts generally do not allow rebuttable presumptions to carry any evidentiary weight.
Courts sometimes refer to rebuttable presumptions as “mandatory rebuttable presumptions,” which are distinguished from permissive inferences. Permissive inferences allow the trier of fact to infer the existence of a fact from other existing proof, but they do not require this inference. Unlike mandatory rebuttable presumptions, permissive inferences do not shift the burden of persuasion to the party against whom it is raised. See: People v. Hoskin.
Rebuttable presumptions can raise due process concerns in criminal cases. In criminal cases, a mandatory rebuttable presumption requires the jury to find the presumed element once the prosecution has proven the predicate facts giving rise to the presumption, unless the defendant persuades the jury otherwise. In other words, this relieves the prosecution of its usual affirmative burden of proof. Courts have held that mandatory rebuttable presumptions will violate a defendant’s due process rights if it shifts the burden of persuasion to the defendant on an essential element of the crime. See: Jolly v. People.
[Last updated in March of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]