•  
  •  
 

Abstract

In Hinds v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sought to clarify and simplify the law of rebuttable presumptions as to the quantum of evidence that must be introduced before a presumption is dispelled. The Maine court adopted a rule which states that a presumption is rebutted when the probability of the nonexistence of the presumed fact is as probable as its existence. Stated another way, a presumption is rebutted when the jurors' minds are placed in equilibrium. Ten years later, in State v. O'Clair, the court expressly incorporated the Hinds rule into criminal procedure. In the O'Clair decision, the court also held by way of dicta that when the defendant asserts an affirmative defense, he has the burden of persuasion as to the nonexistence of a presumed fact, regardless of whether the affirmative defense constitutes rebuttal evidence to a presumption. The equilibrium standard utilized in the Hinds decision did little to alleviate confusion surrounding presumptions and is inappropriate for application in both civil and criminal cases. The standard breeds ambiguity in jury instructions with the consequent infringement upon a defendant's right to a fair trial by jury in criminal proceedings and, in effect, shifts the burden of persuasion to the accused. Furthermore, the equilibrium standard and the affirmative defense corollary are a serious challenge to the presumption of innocence and the "reasonable doubt" requirement embodied in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In civil cases, the standard does not best serve the interests of all litigants because of an unfair allocation of the burden of persuasion. Different policy and constitutional considerations in civil and criminal cases warrant a dual standard for each proceeding as to the quantum of evidence necessary to rebut a presumption.

First Page

175

Download

Share

COinS