MA · jury_instructions
Instruction 3.240, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court
Presumption
PRESUMPTION
NOTE:
The word “presumption” should be avoided in charging the jury where a permissible inference is meant,
Commonwealth v. Hughes, 380 Mass. 596, 603, 404 N.E.2d 1246, 1250 (1980) (inference of intent to steal from
breaking and entering a dwelling at night), even if the statute itself uses the word “presumption,” Commonwealth v.
Moreira, 385 Mass. 792, 797, 434 N.E.2d 196, 200 (1982).
It is constitutionally impermissible to shift the burden of proof as to an element of the crime to the defendant
by means of a presumption. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 524, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 2459 (1979) (presumption that
person intends natural and probable consequences of his acts); DeJoinville v. Commonwealth, 381 Mass. 246, 408
N.E.2d 1353 (1980) (same); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 704, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 1892 (1975) (presumption of malice
from intentional and unlawful homicide); Commonwealth v. Zezima, 387 Mass. 748, 754-755, 443 N.E.2d 1282,
1285-1286 (1982) (presumption that person intends natural consequences of using a dangerous weapon); Moreira,
supra (statutory breathalyzer presumptions); Commonwealth v. Munoz, 384 Mass. 503, 509, 426 N.E.2d 1161,
1164-1165 (1981) (presumption that vehicle uninsured); Commonwealth v. Callahan, 380 Mass. 821, 822-826, 406
N.E.2d 385, 386-388 (1980) (presumption of malice from intentional use of deadly weapon). This is true even if the
jury is instructed that the presumption is rebuttable. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S.Ct. 1965 (1985).
“Conclusive and mandatory presumptions are constitutionally infirm, while permissive presumptions, or
inferences, are permissible.” Moreira, 385 Mass. at 794, 434 N.E.2d at 199. A mandatory presumption is one that
requires the jury to find an ultimate fact to be true upon proof of another fact unless they are otherwise persuaded by
a preponderance of evidence offered in rebuttal. Id., 385 Mass. at 795, 434 N.E.2d at 199.
In criminal cases, statutory provisions designating specified items as prima facie evidence of a fact to be
proved must be presented to the jury as sufficient evidence of a permissible inference, and not as a mandatory
presumption. See Instruction 3.260 (Prima Facie Evidence).
History
Instruction 3.240, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court (2009 Edition). Published by the Administrative Office of the District Court, District Court Department of the Trial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on www.mass.gov. © 1988-2009 Administrative Office of the District Court; reproduced under its title-page permission ("You may freely reproduce or copy this work if you identify its source and any changes made to the original work"). Source: https://www.mass.gov/doc/3240-presumption/download. Changes made: the text is extracted from the published PDF (verified by three extraction engines); the running headers, page numbers and line layout are removed, and a closing NOTES section, where printed, is carried as the note.
Provenance
- Source
- mass.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-25
- Edition
- 2026-09-25
- Content hash
756af22aab8069efc20d62d97d98420298c0d8ba54aed5a0f46c3419a7e261e4
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.