Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah courts use mandatory presumptions in stolen property cases? State v. Crowley Explained

2014 UT App 33
No. 20120128-CA
February 13, 2014
Reversed

Summary

Defendant was convicted of theft by receiving stolen property and theft by deception after pawning a stolen iPod. The State relied on a jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption that possession of recently stolen property without satisfactory explanation constitutes prima facie evidence that the possessor stole the property.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical constitutional issue regarding jury instructions in stolen property cases in State v. Crowley, holding that certain presumptions violate a defendant’s due process rights.

Background and Facts

Joseph Brandon Crowley was charged with theft by receiving stolen property and theft by deception after pawning a stolen iPod approximately two weeks after it was taken from a parked vehicle. The State’s evidence showed Crowley possessed and pawned the iPod, but the prosecution acknowledged it could not prove Crowley actually stole the device. Instead, the State relied on a jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption that possession of recently stolen property without satisfactory explanation constitutes prima facie evidence that the possessor stole the property.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the jury instruction violated due process by impermissibly shifting the burden of proof from the State to the defendant. The instruction required the jury to presume Crowley stole the iPod unless he provided a satisfactory explanation for his possession. Crowley argued this violated his constitutional rights by forcing him to either testify in his own defense or face an adverse presumption.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished between mandatory presumptions and permissive inferences. While permissive inferences allow juries to draw possible conclusions from proven facts, mandatory presumptions require juries to infer certain facts, violating due process when they shift the burden of proof on essential elements. The court found the instruction created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption because it lacked clarifying language that would make the presumption permissive, such as “may infer” or “may reasonably draw the inference.”

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts cannot use the statutory language of Utah Code section 76-6-402(1) verbatim in jury instructions. Attorneys must ensure any instruction regarding possession of stolen property includes explicit language making clear the presumption is within the jury’s discretion. The State cannot rely on general burden-of-proof instructions to cure defective presumption language—corrective language must be included within the problematic instruction itself.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Crowley

Citation

2014 UT App 33

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20120128-CA

Date Decided

February 13, 2014

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A jury instruction creating a mandatory presumption that possession of recently stolen property without satisfactory explanation constitutes prima facie evidence that the possessor stole the property violates due process by impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of law regarding propriety of jury instructions

Practice Tip

When drafting jury instructions involving possession of stolen property, include explicit language that any presumption is permissive and within the jury’s discretion to apply, using terms like ‘may infer’ rather than mandatory language.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    State v. Harding

    December 16, 2011

    A police officer’s search of a passenger’s backpacks based solely on the driver’s consent to search the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment where the officer lacked reasonable belief that the driver had apparent authority to consent.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Search and Seizure
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Berman v. Yarbrough

    December 20, 2011

    A motion to enforce cannot be used to address matters beyond the scope of the underlying judgment it seeks to enforce.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.