Evidence: Presumptions Flashcards
What are presumptions?
Presumptions in Civil Cases (FRE 301)
A conclusion made as to the existence or nonexistence of a fact that may be drawn from other evidence that is admitted and proven to be true. Presumptions function as an evidence shortcut.
o How it works: A presumption arises where one set of facts, the “basic facts,” once established by the proponent, permits or requires belief of another set of facts, the “presumed facts,” absent a contrary showing.
Legal v. Factual Presumptions
- Legal presumption
EXAMPLES: Presumption of innocence; minors are incompetent to contract or create will.
- Factual presumptions
EXAMPLES: Absentia for 7 years = absent person is dead; child born during marriage = child of father; if fire a gun at a vital part of the body = intent to kill; proof that a letter was mailed = letter received.
Rebuttable v. Irrebuttable Presumptions
- Rebuttable – presumption can be rebutted/disproved with other evidence; most presumptions are REBUTTABLE.
- Irrebuttable – presumption can NOT be rebutted/disproved with other evidence
- Irrebuttable NOT permitted in criminal cases – absolves government of burden of proof.
o The rule applies ONLY in civil cases; presumptions are not permitted in criminal cases.
o Under the FRE, the burden of production will shift, but the burden of persuasion does not.
EXAMPLE: If a beneficiary in Los Angeles brings a claim against an insurance company seeking death benefits testifies that their spouse has been missing for seven years, a presumption is created that the spouse is legally dead. The burden of production now shifts to the insurance company to produce credible evidence that the spouse is not dead, for example, that someone saw the spouse alive three years ago. Absent such evidence by the insurance company, the court will grant the beneficiary’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. If the insurance company offers such evidence, the court will deny the beneficiary’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, but the presumption remains, and the issue will go to the jury/trier of fact to decide if the spouse is alive or dead. The beneficiary still bears the burden of persuasion – to persuade the jury/trier of fact that the spouse is dead.
What is the “Bursting Bubble” theory of presumptions?
This is a different theory of presumptions. Under this theory, once the opponent presents sufficient evidence that the presumed fact is not true (e.g., spouse has been seen w/in the last seven years), the presumption disappears - the bubble bursts – and the trier of fact cannot find the existence of the presumed fact (that spouse is dead), absent other direct proof (a dead body, death certificate, someone saw spouse die or dead). Absent direct evidence, the proponent has then NOT proven that the spouse is dead as a matter of law.
- The FRE does NOT follow the bursting bubble theory
What is the FLORDIA rule for presumptions?
All presumptions are deemed rebuttable UNLESS made conclusive under the law from which they arise.
- Whether a presumption shifts the burden of production of proof turns on the purpose for which the presumption was created.
- When the presumption was created primarily as a procedural convenience and grounded in experience, and not to further some public policy, then it only shifts the burden of production.
- Under FL law, all other rebuttable presumptions shift the burden of persuasion against whom they are directed.
