Opinion ID: 574686
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Permissive Inference

Text: 10 On the issue of whether defendants were engaged in the business' of selling obscene matter, the trial court instructed the jury in the following terms: 11 In considering whether a defendant is engaged in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter, if you find that a person sold or transferred at one time two or more obscene items or two or more copies of an obscene item, you may find that person is engaged in the business of selling obscene matter. Whether you choose to draw such an inference is strictly up to you. 12 By couching its instruction in this manner, the district court left the determination of this element to the jury. 13 A permissive inference suggests to the jury a possible conclusion to be drawn if the State proves predicate facts, but does not require the jury to draw that conclusion. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. at 314. Under these circumstances, a defendant's due process rights are implicated only when there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference. County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157 (1979). In determining whether a rational connection exists, the Supreme Court has offered this guidance: [A] criminal statutory presumption must be regarded as 'irrational' or 'arbitrary,' and hence unconstitutional, unless it can at least be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend. Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 36 (1969). 14 Using this analytical framework, we conclude that the trial court's instruction regarding the engaged in business element passes constitutional muster. In assisting the jury in understanding an element of the crime, the court alluded to the definition preferred by Congress. The instruction did not require the jury to infer a fact from proven facts, however, because the drawing of the inference was expressly said to be permissive, not mandatory. Since it is more likely than not that the sale of two obscene films indicates that an individual is engaged in the business of selling obscene matter, the inference suggested to the jury passes the rationality test outlined in Leary.