But, the rule pertaining to criminal convictions does not duplicate the statute. Indeed, it serves a significantly different purpose. Rather, it serves to render a court order admissible, and to create a presumption that the order was properly entered and that the facts recited therein are accurate. Statutory language making proof of one fact prima facie evidence of another fact is analogous to a statutory rebuttable presumption. No one here suggests that the statute would not apply in a civil bench trial in circuit or district court.
Evidentiary rules are rules of procedure.
In addition to MRE 101, cited by the Administrator, MRE 301 is pertinent here. Under both of these rules, the Legislature may play a role in establishing presumptions in civil actions. That burden may be otherwise allocated by the Legislature or judicial decision based, among other factors, on an estimate of the probabilities, fairness and special policy considerations, and similar concerns may justify the creation, judicially or by law, of a presumption to aid the party who has the burden of production. And the Court's rules of practice and procedure, including the Rules of Evidence, take precedence over conflicting statutes. Thus, the dispositive question is whether the statute conflicts with a rule or decision of the Supreme Court.