(10) Evidence: Burdens and Presumptions

Question 1

Overall Rule

Burden of Proof

Answer 1

The burden of proof is comprised of 2 distinct burdens, the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.

Question 2

Burden of Production

Answer 2

The party with the burden must produce legally sufficient evidence to each claim or defense so the reasonable trier of fact (the jury) can infer that the fact has been proven. This burden may shift during trial.

Question 3

Burden of Persuasion

Answer 3

This is the degree to which legally sufficient evidence must be presented to the trier of fact.

This burden does not shift.

(ex. The P must prove the allegations in the complaint and the D must prove any affirmative defenses).

Question 4

Burden of Persuasion Standard in Civil Cases

Answer 4

The standard is preponderance of the evidence which is it is more likely to exist than not.

Question 5

Burden of Persuasion Standard in Criminal Cases

Answer 5

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt which means the Prosecutor must overcome the D’s presumed innocence.

Question 6

Definititon / Types:

Presumptions

Answer 6

A presumption is a conclusion the trier of fact is required to draw upon a party’s proof of fact(s). There are (1) rebuttable presumptions which may be overcome by contrary evidence; then (2) conclusive presumptions which may not and (3) Destruction of evidence presumption which is a rebuttable presumption.

Question 7

Rebuttable Presumption

Answer 7

Shifts the burden of production but not the burden of persuasion to the opposing party.

Question 8

Conclusive Presumption

Answer 8

Are treated as substantive law and cannot be challenged by contrary evidence no matter how strong the proof.

Ex. Children under 4 cannot commit intentional torts.

Question 9

Destruction of Evidence Presumption

Answer 9

Intentional destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises the presumption that the evidence is unfavorable to the party who destroyed the evidence. The victim to the destroyed evidence must establish that (1) The destruction was intentional; (2) The destroyed evidence was relevant to the case; AND (3) the alleged victim acted with due diligence as to the destroyed evidence.
*This is a rebuttable presumption.