What is the current state of the law on permissive inference?

The appellate court rejected the contention that it is error to instruct on a permissive inference whenever evidence at trial rebuts the permissible inference. (People v. Beltran, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 238.) Rather, the court held that "when used in appropriate cases, permissive inferences do not shift the burden of production or lower the prosecution's burden of proof. Because they may or may not be drawn by the jury, they do not operate in an unconstitutionally pernicious manner. For these reasons,

Page 12

CALJIC No. 12.61.1 may be given regardless of whether there is other evidence admitted at trial 'rebutting' the inference. However, the use of permissive inferences is not permitted in all cases." (Id. at p. 244.) Ultimately, the court concluded that giving a permissive inference instruction is improper when, based on the evidence presented at trial, there is "no rational connection between the proved fact and the fact to be inferred sufficient to justify the giving" of the instruction. (Id. at p. 238.) This was based on the understanding that while a permissive inference instruction "'does not shift the burden of proof, it violates due process "if the suggested conclusion is not one that reason and common sense justify in light of the proven facts before the jury." [Citations.]'" (Id. at p. 245, quoting Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307, 314-315.)