People v. Rode

Facts

Roder (D) owned and operated a secondhand store with Rayfield. A woman informed police that she had seen several items that were stolen from her home in the store. Police investigated and arrested D and Rayfield for receiving stolen property. The court then gave an instruction (1) that defendant was a dealer in secondhand merchandise, (2) that he had bought or received stolen property, (3) that he bought or received such property under circumstances which should have caused him to make reasonable inquiry that the person from whom the property was bought had the legal right to sell it, and (4) that he did not make such reasonable inquiry, 'then you shall presume that defendant bought or received such property knowing it to have been stolen unless from all the evidence you have reasonable doubt that defendant knew the property was stolen.' During deliberations, the jury requested clarification of the presumption instruction. The court then explained: 'If you find those four things, then the presumption does come into play. The presumption is that the defendants bought such property knowing it to have been stolen. However, it's a presumption -- There are two kinds of presumptions. One is a conclusive presumption that if you have the presumption, that's it, you don't go any further. This isn't that kind of presumption. It's what's called a rebuttable presumption, because you have the presumption, presume to know that the property was stolen, but they can go forward and raise a reasonable doubt that they actually knew that. So, you still do have that question. Basically, it boils down to are you satisfied that they acquired or retained the property knowing it was stolen, or do you have a reasonable doubt. . . .' D was convicted and appeals, arguing that the presumption is unconstitutional because it relieves the prosecution of its burden of proving all material elements of the offense.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.