Court Opinion

ID: 9553853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:36:07.709464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:23.140192
License: Public Domain

Stafford, J.
(concurring in part and concurring in the result in part) — I concur in the first three counts. In the fourth count I concur only in the result.
Without question, in a criminal case there must be a “rational connection” between a fact proved and the ultimate fact legislatively presumed. Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 23 L. Ed. 2d 57, 89 S. Ct. 1532 (1969); Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 24 L. Ed. 2d 610, 90 S. Ct. 642 (1970). I agree with the majority’s position that there is no “rational connection” between the fact that one is armed with an unlicensed pistol and an intent to commit a crime of violence. To this extent, then, I agree that the legislatively created presumption must fail and that instruction 25 based thereon was incorrect.
However, the majority appears to hold additionally that in a criminal case the “rational connection” must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in all legislatively created presumptions. Such a holding is both unnecessary for the instant decision and much too sweeping in its scope. Thus, as to the last count, I concur only in the result.
Brachtenbach, J., concurs with Stafford, J.