Court Opinion

ID: 9535650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:51:38.908752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:17.635471
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
dissenting.
In State v. Trieb, 315 N.W.2d 649, 654 n. 6 (N.D.1982), we observed that: “The key to satisfying Sandstrom is to explain to the jury the legal effect of the presumption. Sandstrom does ... clearly invalidate all conclusive presumptions and those rebuttable presumptions which shift the burden of persuasion to the defendant.” We further observed that: “The possibility that the jurors may have viewed the presumptions as shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant, a possibility condemned in Sandstrom, also exists in this case.” Trieb, supra at 652. Although, contrary to the facts in Trieb, here the jury was told that the presumption could be rebutted, I am not convinced that the jury instructions clearly explained that the re-buttable presumption did not shift the burden of persuasion, only the burden of production. I therefore respectfully dissent.