Document: 442 U.S. 140 99 S.Ct. 2213 60 L.Ed.2d 777 COUNTY COURT OF ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners,v.Samuel ALLEN al. No. 77-1554. Argued Feb. 22, 1979. Decided June 4, Syllabus Respondents (three adult males) and a 16-year-old girl (Jane Doe) were jointly tried in New York state court on charges, inter alia, of illegally possessing two loaded handguns found an automobile which they riding when it was stopped for speeding. The guns had been positioned crosswise Jane Doe's open handbag either the front floor or seat passenger side where she sitting. All four defendants objected to introduction into evidence, arguing that State not adequately demonstrated connection between defendants. trial overruled objection, relying presumption possession created by statute providing presence firearm is presumptive evidence its illegal all persons then occupying vehicle, except when, "upon person" one occupants. also denied respondents' motion dismiss charges alleged ground such exception applied because person, concluding applicability question fact jury. After being instructed entitled infer from defendants' car, consider circumstances tending support contradict inference, decide matter itself without regard how much introduced, jury convicted handguns. Defendants' post-trial challenged constitutionality as them, denied. Both intermediate appellate Court Appeals affirmed convictions, latter holding whether treating this having resolved prosecution's favor, therefore there sufficient convictions. summarily rejected argument unconstitutional case. filed habeas corpus petition Federal District Court, contending due process law application statutory presumption. issued writ, respondents "deliberately bypassed" their federal claim actions at mere woman's car could reasonably give rise inference three other car. United States affirmed, decided constitutional merits rather than any independent procedural might have barred collateral relief and, deciding case, face. Held : 1. jurisdiction entertain unconstitutional. There no history litigation courts adequate bars addressing issue corpus. If neither legislature nor indicate some rule, implies disrespect entertaining claim. Pp. 147-154. 2. erred facial issue. In analyzing mandatory presumption, must accept even if sole element offense (as opposed purely permissive allows, but does require, trier elemental proof prosecutor basic places burden kind defendant), irrelevant ample record conviction. Without determining case mandatory, analyzed face were, despite judge's instructions made clear not. 2223-2227. 3. As facts constitutional. Under circumstances, would entirely reasonable rejecting suggestion possession. Assuming did reject it, tantamount lying car's plain view respondents, surely rational each fully aware guns' both ability intent exercise dominion control over them. thus comports with standard, Leary v. States, 395 6, 89 1532, 23 57, be "rational connection" prosecution proved ultimate presumed, "more likely flow from" former. Moreover, should judged more stringent "reasonable doubt" test, insofar 163-167. 568 F.2d 998, reversed. Eileen Shapiro, City, petitioners. Michael A. Young, respondents. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 A provides that, certain exceptions, vehicle.1 Second Circuit held may challenge proceeding "unconstitutional face." 1009. We granted certiorari review these holdings 439 815, 75, 58 106. 2 Four persons, males (respondents) Doe, who respondent here), possessed handguns, machinegun, pound heroin Chevrolet speeding Thruway shortly after noon March 28, 1973. large-caliber together ammunition weighed approximately six pounds, seen through window investigating police officer. They Doe admitted hers.2 machinegun discovered trunk pried open. borrowed driver's brother earlier day; key person occupants, although testimony occupants placed something before embarking car.3 acquitted them contents trunk. 3 Counsel drugs, clients contraband. statute. Tr. 474-483. Because apply weapon see n. 1, supra, male moved relating Doe. close evidence. judge twice 544-557, 589-590. 4 At trial, jurors He make reference his explanation object omission request alternative additional subject. 5 Defendants apart insufficient sustain denied, id., 775-776, convictions Appellate Division opinion. People Lemmons, 49 A.D.2d 639, 370 N.Y.S.2d 243 (1975). 6 affirmed. 40 N.Y.2d 505, 387 97, 354 N.E.2d 836 (1976). It her pocketbook. Although recognized only lead conclusion weapons person's possession, presented Since asked submit jury, treated though favor. concluded Id., 509-512, N.Y.S.2d, 99-101, N.E.2d, 839-841. See infra, 153-154. 7 writ Southern App. Pet. Cert. 33a-36a. 8 different reasons. First, entire panel relief. Then, majority court, "presumption obviously sweeps within compass (1) many know are gun (which out sight), (2) permitted access it."4 Concurring separately, Judge Timbers agreed considered improper reach statute's constitutionality. F.2d, 1011-1012. 9 questions: unconstitutional; proper issue; (3) answer first affirmative, second negative. accordingly reverse. 10 * This sixth time hold rely otherwise convict them.5 No has refused hear suggested improperly presented. Nevertheless, announced verdict, less explicit reasons arises so basis corpus.6 Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594; Fay Noia, 372 391, 438, 83 822, 848, 837. conclude ground, presumption's properly us. Franks Delaware, 438 154, 161-162, 98 2674, 2679-2680, 57 667; Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 704-705, 95 1881, 1892-1893, 44 508. (REHNQUIST, J., concurring).7 11 contemporaneous-objection policy applies case.8 we found, ever expressly grounds made. Cf. U.S., 74, S.Ct., 2499. Indeed, rule appears "insufficiency evidence" claims raised until sentence imposed.9 York's generally bar type postverdict insufficiency made, least judicially exceptions nonetheless case.10 12 supported, probable unavailability aspects record. never argued default occurred. suggests thinking terms parties apprise timing objection presumption; discovered, therefore, unless those combed transcript themselves. prompting based decision what said so. 13 Second, ruled set aside verdict. 775-776. authorized do preserved appeal, implicitly default.11 most logical drawn Division's unexplained affirmance accepted judgment reasoning court. 14 Third, apparent careful examination ignore Instead, merits. That faced several prior cases always confined brief subject string citation cases. Respondents' Brief Appeals, p. 9. surprising, discussion reprise traditionally given N.Y.2d, 509-511, 99-100, 839-840, citing McCaleb, 25 394, 306 889, 255 136 (1969); Leyva, 38 160, 379 30, 341 546 omits word "constitutional," interpretation intended passing summary disposition already numerous occasions. borne dissenting members unequivocally addressed claim12 Judges, whose experience practice respect, State's highest 1000. Bishop Wood, 426 341, 345-346, 96 2074, 2077-2078, 48 684; Huddleston Dwyer, 322 232, 237, 64 1015, 1018, 88 L.Ed. 1246. 15 Our address confirmed policies informing "adequate ground" jurisdiction. purpose accord appropriate respect sovereignty our system. 88, 2507. But claim.13 II 16 28 U.S.C. § 2254 authorizes custody violation Constitution, grant power questions necessarily subsumed limited authority adjudicate specific controversies adverse litigants whom authority, duty necessary dispose equally strong avoid issues need order determine rights under consideration. E. g., Transit Authority Beazer, 440 568, 582-583, 1355, 1363-1364, 59 587. 17 party standing impact own rights. general defect litigant, he argue third hypothetical situations. Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601, 610, 93 2908, 2914, 37 830 (and cited). statutes broadly prohibit speech protected First Amendment. 611-616, 2915-2918. justified overriding interest removing deterrents right free speech. Gooding Wilson, 405 518, 520, 92 1103, 1105, 31 408; Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 486, 85 1116, 1120, 22. justification, course, enhances legal risks associated vehicles containing dangerous weapons. 18 undertook task "on Its arbitrary rested fairness applying situations—situations, indeed, improbable return conviction,14 instituted.15 inquire advance arguments decisive. An analysis indicates inquiry depends involved 19 Inferences presumptions staple adversary system factfinding. often existence crime—that is, "ultimate" "elemental" fact—from "evidentiary" "basic" facts. Barnes 412 837, 843-844, 2357, 2361-2362, 380; Tot 319 463, 467, 63 1241, 1244, 87 1519; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. Turnipseed, 219 35, 42, 136, 137, 55 78. value evidentiary devices, validity Due Process Clause, vary however, depending strength particular degree device curtails factfinder's freedom assess independently. Nonetheless, criminal cases, test device's remains constant: undermine responsibility adduced State, find beyond doubt. re Winship, 397 358, 364, 90 1068, 1072, 368; 702-703 31, 1891-1892 31. common allows—but require—the defendant. See, e. 840 3, 2360 situation constitute prima facie fact. Turner 396 398, 402 2, 642, 645, 24 610. When reviewing device, required challenging demonstrate invalidity him. 845, 2362; 419-424, 653-656. Gainey, 63, 67-68, 69-70, 754, 757-758, 758-759, 658. leaves credit shift proof, affects "beyond standard if, way inference. For risk permissible use caused presumptively factfinder erroneous factual determination. 20 far troublesome device. affect "no placement burden; tells upon fact, defendant come forward rebut presumed 401-402, 644-645, 1; 1545, 57; Romano, 382 138, 143, 86 279, 280, 281, 283, 210; 469, 1245.16 situation, examined extent coincide. 408-418, 648-653; 45-52, 1552-1553; 140-141, 281-282; 468, 1245. To forced abide evaluation logically divorced accuracy run cases.17 reason one, 407, 647; 31-32, 1545-1546; 138-139, 280-281. 21 mandatory,18 were. not, pointed out. 510-511, 100, 840. 22 merely part case,19 gave available ignored affirmative offered rebuttal.20 explained actual constructive, constructive exist weapons.21 carefully innocence favor controls exclusive satisfied doubt manner described judge.22 short, plainly directed introduced.23 considering here None pass error determination III rational. Notwithstanding Appeals' analysis, "hitchhikers casual passengers," "a few inches length" "out [respondents'] sight." accompanying text. against predicated solely circumstances—which, surprisingly, counsel repeatedly emphasized argument, 282-283, 294-297, 306—made highly custodian Even purse police, strongly suggest able too large concealed handbag.24 bag consequently open, view, easy driver even, perhaps, rear seat.25 26 belonged responsible purse. company men carrying let alone two, heavy relied pocketknife brassiere self-protection. unreasonable halted speeding, passengers anticipated search attempted conceal pocketbook seat. notion property girl. 27 suggestion—which, incidentally, defense closing jury26—that automobile. laid down restated 36, 1548. former.27 argue, not" employed Leary.28 invoke inferred 842-843, 2361-2362. again overlooks distinction offense.29 since bears establishing guilt, rest guilt former meet reasonable-doubt standard. require play probative force relevant admitted. long finding satisfy Leary. 29 used test. And, noted, whole establish 30 So ordered. 32 CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring. 33 I join Court's reversing review. detailed step-by-step issues, central controlling can become lost. "underbrush" finely tuned complex tends bury 34 On record, readily reached same result benefit compromise people placing occupied package soon trunk, apparently enough knowledge officer outside Reasonable outside, hardly miss seeing. Courts practical business factfinders, unlike negotiators, luxury verdicts compromise. 35 POWELL, BRENNAN, STEWART MARSHALL join, dissenting. 36 agree underlying am agreement, charged meets requirements forth decisions. contrary, individual's handgun individual possesses weapon. law, encourage facts, direct presented, proved.1 (1973); 210 (1965). plain: Like instructions, provide guidance jurors' Once juryroom, draw inferences evidence—both circumstantial. Through presumptions, commended attention legislatures courts. Legitimate jury's deliberations indispensible justice poses distinct perils accurately identifies danger interference "the doubt." Ante, 156. (that offense) disproves preponderance shifts concerning inferred.2 39 difficulty lies lessening bear. notes, reviewed shifted persuasion, ante, 157-159, 16; instead, produce 1519 (1943), suggestions sensible conclusions presented.3 Evolving decisions, judging based—not requirement put proof—but encouraged inferences, reflect valid observation about natural events occur society. articulated 2(f) Firearms Act. provided "possession . [who crime violence] shall shipped transported [in interstate foreign commerce]." interpreted obligation presenting exculpatory origins ammunition, once Government violence. Noting juries another essential "if inference," guided making legislative common-law relation broader take case," process, presumed"—a grounded "common experience." 467-468, Tot, lacking.4 41 Subsequently, (1969), reaffirmed refined specifically connections related events. receive, conceal, buy, sell marihuana brought knowing imported. "shall deemed authorize conviction explains satisfaction jury." decisions Harlan, writing "that regarded 'irrational' 'arbitrary,' hence unconstitutional, substantial assurance depend." 1548 (footnote omitted). invalidated statute, possess imported illegally.5 42 Most recently, quite sort presumption—one " '[p]ossession recently stolen property, satisfactorily explained, ordinarily circumstance you knew stolen.' various formulations articulate constitutionally unnecessary choose among Barnes, well founded history, sense, experience, upheld "clearly enable stolen. 2363. 43 sum, uniformly requires proof.6 addition, Constitution restricts charge requiring recommended accurate reflections tell us relations Generally, truth whenever premise true. Thus, present told: "Our Penal Law machine unlawful words, [under] hand weapons, prohibited instruments found. effective contradicting flowing disappear contradictory adduced." 45 Undeniably, regardless presented: weapon" "occupied found." believe fairly sense automobiles simply possessors 46 "to possess" physical tangible property." N.Y.Penal 10.00(8) (McKinney 1975). Plainly, more—does exercises "dominion over" everything it. countless situations individuals invited guests nothing about, over. Similarly, invite others person; insist identified particularly susceptible concealment objects observed 47 context, hesitant location, noting "[p]resence admissible charge; absent showing defendant's function [illegal] still, tenuous permit guilt—'the ..' 1245, 1519." 141, 282. uphold automobile, light supported society, cannot say Accordingly, violated use. understand today contend contained vehicles. argues, nature look, immediate base "proved" well. approach calls "permissive" urged inference." 162. seems me mischaracterizes acknowledges "instruction disbelieved presence" automobile.7 159 16. nevertheless relies introduced argues prejudiced possibility ignored. 50 plausibility "infer weapons." told therein know, location origin guns, belief automobile.8 purposes here, assume Bollenbach 326 607, 613, 66 402, 405, 350 (1946); cf. 1545. 51 novel presumptions. determined "permissive," whether, one. circumvented manner. Quite "evidence [be] juror .." 843, 2362 (emphasis supplied). 647, 610 (1970). respondents—an irrational. 52 ignores teaching By speculating done thrust effect assumes away altogether, constructing permits inference—no irrational itself—provided guilt. Applying upholds makes effort defend isolation. substance, Court—applying unarticulated harmless-error standard—simply finds guilty charged. acknowledging rationale, new seriously jeopardize fair trial. dissent. 265.15(3) 1967): "The public omnibus, firearm, defaced silencer, bomb, bombshell, gravity knife, switchblade dagger, dirk, stiletto, billy, blackjack, metal knuckles, sandbag, sandclub slungshot weapon, instrument appliance following circumstances: "(a) therein; "(b) operated hire duly licensed due, lawful pursuit trade, driver; (c) pistol revolver duress, license carry same." addition delineated §§ 265.15(3)(a)-(c) above stolen-vehicle public-omnibus itself, 265.20 contains pursuant military, enforcement, recreational, commercial endeavors. arrest troopers. One approached driver, advised him going ticket requested identification, returned patrol radio check indicated wanted Michigan charge, vehicle arrest. Thereafter, went around "open view," saw portion .45-caliber automatic protruding 508-509, 836, 838-839 opened door, removed gun, .38-caliber handbag. testified position kept closing. secured, remaining passengers, sitting seat, arrested frisked. subsequent station disclosed pocket-knife person. 187-192, 208-214, 277-278, 291-297, 408. Early morning, arrived Rochester, N. Y., home sister Cadillac. Using telephone, called brother, "his ran hot" Detroit borrow continue City. sister's home. cleaned drugs. testified, stating transfer unidentified item items while cars parked driveway. 17-19, 69-73, 115-116, 130-131, 193-194. continued: "Nothing length (e. Baretta Derringer) glove compartment assures known hitchhikers it." 1007. memorandum unsuccessful 36a-38a. framed parts precisely later frame briefs 41a-44a, 50a-52a, 6a-10a: "[t]he 35a. "totally conviction." 38a. And third, applied" (or, unconstitutional") 1548, established standards Clauses 36a. sufficiency-focused amply law. 424, 656, ("[A] resting [an unconstitutional] evidence"). Rossi 289 89, 90, 532, 533, 77 1051. cite provision relied, leading provision, conjunction "unconstitutional," left argument. responses every step way, least, understood Respondent's Appendix York, Petitioners silence courts, grounds. point respondents—having unsuccessfully appeal) case—failed ask instruct omitted instruction. further exception's court's instruction failure protest omission. 512, 101, 841. treatment state-law claim—a pressed appeal—how crux strategy present. Arguing appeal disruptive orderly judicial proceedings felt compelled reject, grounds, silently similar forcefully discuss, 153-154, merits, albeit summarily. failed seek apply, now void unpersuasive. demand concession occupant phrase applicable. posture, same. why Following conviction, appealed 1257(2) thereby binding matter. so, petitioners waived 435-438, 847-848, unavailable certiorari. Stevens Marks, 383 234, 788, 724, entertained pursued filing led applicable situation. gives "entertain behalf court" allegedly violates laws treaties States." 2254(a). petitioner exhaust remedies State." 2254(b). petitions 1257(3), appeals 'remedies State.' 436, 847. predicate cautious embodied N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law 470.05(2) 1971): "For ruling during thereto registered, claiming error, opportunity effectively changing added). qualifications italicized above. form "protest" substance clear. Ibid. protests "expressly impliedly." repeated finally, Supreme discretion "consider involving adversely affected appellant," previously to. 470.15(1). Fragale, 972, 401 629 (1978); Travison, 404, 408, 400 188, 191 (1977). Ramos, 344, 308 195 (1970); Walker, Misc.2d 940, 206 377 (1960). Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 29(c) ("It [a acquittal] submission jury"); Burks 437 17-18, 2141, 2150-2151, (under waiver acquittal insufficient). developed allows unobjected-to errors fundamental right." McLucas, 167, 172, 256 799, 204 846, 848 Accord, Arthur, 325, 292 663, 239 537 (1968); DeRenzzio, 45, 277 668, 224 (1966). ambiguously cognizable appeal. Street 394 576, 583-584, 1354, 1361-1362, 572. narrowed Robinson, 224, 367 208, 784 (1975), continues currency denial "fair trial." La Rocca Lane, 575, 584, 376 93, 338 606, 613 (1975); Bennett, 462, 329 801, 280 637, 639 (1972); White, 803, 809, 800, 804 relevance "were ." 1011. will seeking clearly raised. De Bour, 210, 214-215, 386 375, 378-379, 352 562, 565-566 (1976); Robbins, 913, 977, 346 815 supra. Mauro, 436 340, 364-365, 1834, 1849-1850, 56 (failure Interstate Agreement Detainers limit speedy argument). consequent total absence, crime. first, middle prosecutor's 554-590; App., 12a-17a. arguably earlier, government's "nothing up point] connect defendants." 474-502. counterpart just verdict announced, reliance suffice contemporaneous objection. 1971); 8, linkage objections indicating included problems. Logan, 94 681, 684 (Sup.Ct., 1949); Report Joint Legislative Committee Ammunition, N.Y.Leg.Doc. 29, (1962). Section 330.30(1) 1971) "[a]t rendition sentence" "[a]ny appearing which, prospective reversal modification court." 514-515, 842-843 (Wachtler, concurring dissenting); 516, 103-104, 843-844 (Fuchsberg, dissenting). looking litigation, arguable authoritative resolution conflict statutes. very companion drug 220.25(1) Supp. 1978), persuade notwithstanding supporting transferring morning. hypothetical, implausible, illustrated reported remotely posited occasional justify presence, hesitated Scott, App.Div.2d 703, 384 878 Garcia, 560, 340 (1973). character hypothesized still unconvincing appropriate. imaginable 53, 1557. assumption hitchhiker class subdivided parts: production defendant, persuasion returns prosecution; almost fit subclass, totally prosecution. Roviaro 353 623, 629, describing operation Turner, Leary, Romano. imposes extremely low production—e. "any" evidence—it greater analyze such. 703 1892 controlling, recourse useful illustration types analyzes (one permissive) cocaine, importation distribution narcotic essentially importance focusing precise presentation scope comparison 658, site still. Gainey sustained "for on" distillery 5601(a)(4), whereas "possession, custody, control" 5601(a)(1). difference outcome attributable important differences sweeping prohibition activity Romano narrow aspect undertaking, higher probability latter. Of perhaps importance, permissive; convinced site. 'a along case.' emphasized, "jury conclusive." 758-759. 'shall conviction.' 281. dependent, part, judge. 16, States. Dr. Timothy professor Harvard University, customs inspectors Laredo, Tex., returning Mexican international border. Marihuana seeds silver snuffbox filled semirefined partially smoked cigarettes knowingly country 176a (1964 ed.). presumption: [for importation] claimed carried Mexico back. Harlan noted theory elements affirm certainty 1545-1546. Clause. facial. Despite educated traveled major exporter country, unlikely source marihuana, instead possessors" knowledge. Government's (unless, met "satisfying" contrary), reversed discussed instructions. "It your weigh witness intention speak memory reconcile, possible, conflicting statements material ways try get evidence." 739-740. "To thereto, Anderson Lemmons chief." 744. "Accordingly, warranted proven doubt, firearms, you." 746. "In 743. relative drugs rebutted lack case." 760. "As defined, means one's hand, place control, personal retain dominion." 742. "[Y]ou judges weight credibility witness." 730. "Under starts innocent, follows throughout you, innocent charge. guilty, then, ripens overcome destroyed." 734. "Now, .45 .38, defined before." 745. evaluate independently receiving identical contraband 14, referred "cannon." 306. allowed virtually contrary: "One thing. You live cultures societies. think [respondent] Hardrick hair unusual; seem strange you. differently. example, living times conditions big city, Detroit, bigger unusual small arms protect themselves, it? City policemen fear go. got understand; jurors. These people, flesh blood, motives, objectives." 653-654 634. passed Russo, 303 N.Y. 673, 102 834 (1951). Terra, 332, 576 (1951), presume room located dismissed want question, 342 938, 72 561, 698, persuasive: "[T]here 'sinister significance' accused reasonableness occupancy kept. Persons occupy room, reside conduct venture—and context term 'occupying' signifies .—normally it; certainly, uncommon unfair room's presence. acts erects 'conscious' 'knowing.' N.Y., 335-336, 578-579. Interim Temporary Commission Evaluate Drug Laws, N.Y.Leg.Doc.No. 10, 69 (1972), drafters analogous automobile/narcotics 220.25 "We believe, find, of, culpably in, abandoned secreted quantity unaware transporting dealership quantities go driving friends pick strangers. occasionally happen, bare culpable, culpability direction point. offset including negate culpable involvement." judgments deserve assessing 39, 1549; 67, 757. upshot think, rests [may have] guns." Post, 175-176. plausible, disregard dissent's plausible; proving attached significance inexorably Such encouragement see, 1201(b), Unless specified, "presumption" herein "permissible inferences," "true" F. James, Civil Procedure 7.9 167. involves shifting restrictions us, express views prove offense, mind My Part II, concern here. touchstone "mandatory" 157. discussions forms Jeffries Stephan, Defenses, Presumptions, Burden Proof Criminal Law, Yale L.J. 1325 (1979); recognition ibid. (distinguishing true "presumptions" inferences"). 658 (1965), explicitly declined follow premises, 64, 64. similarly avoided 416, 652, disagrees, restraint commending anything handbag, 163; ibid.; "easy seat," purse, "tantamount automobile." 164. mistaken "respondents 'hitchhikers passengers,' length' 'out sight,' possibilities inappropriate 163. sure, free, believes, respondents—like hitchhikers—had incidental relationship auto traveling, contrary indeed sight.

Category: 3