Brief Fact Summary. The defendants, Robert Earl Roder and Betty Rayfield (the “defendants”) were prosecuted for receiving stolen property. The defendants owned a second hand store, and the police found numerous stolen items after executing a search warrant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The prosecution always bears the burden of proof in criminal cases.
The ultimate test of a device's constitutional validity is that it must not undermine the factfinder's responsibility at trial, based on evidence adduced by the State, to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Did the trial court commit constitutional error in instructing the jury on the statutory presumption of guilty knowledge applicable to secondhand dealers?
Held. Justice Kaus issued the opinion of the Supreme Court of California in reversing the defendants’ conviction and holding that the instructions given to the jury regarding the presumption could have been interpreted as relieving the prosecution of its burden to prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Discussion. The jury was not appropriately informed of the constitutional issues. The Supreme Court of California determined that on remand, the trial court should give a jury instruction that makes it clear that the prosecution retains the burden of proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doub.