v. Allen, No. 77-1554

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTEVENS
Citation99 S.Ct. 2213,442 U.S. 140,60 L.Ed.2d 777
Decision Date04 June 1979
Docket NumberNo. 77-1554
Parties., Petitioners, v. Samuel ALLEN et al

442 U.S. 140
99 S.Ct. 2213
60 L.Ed.2d 777
COUNTY COURT OF ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners,

v.

Samuel ALLEN et al.

No. 77-1554.
Argued Feb. 22, 1979.
Decided June 4, 1979.
Syllabus

Respondents (three adult males) and a 16-year-old girl (Jane Doe) were jointly tried in a New York state court on charges, inter alia, of illegally possessing two loaded handguns found in an automobile in which they were riding when it was stopped for speeding. The guns had been positioned crosswise in Jane Doe's open handbag on either the front floor or front seat on the passenger side where she was sitting. All four defendants objected to the introduction of the guns into evidence, arguing that the State had not adequately demonstrated a connection between the guns and the defendants. The trial court overruled the objection, relying on the presumption of possession created by a New York statute providing that the presence of a firearm in an automobile is presumptive evidence of its illegal possession by all persons then occupying the vehicle, except when, inter alia, the firearm is found "upon the person" of one of the occupants. The trial court also denied respondents' motion to dismiss the charges on the alleged ground that such exception applied because the guns were found on Jane Doe's person, the court concluding that the applicability of the exception was a question of fact for the jury. After being instructed that it was entitled to infer possession from the defendants' presence in the car, to consider all circumstances tending to support or contradict such inference, and to decide the matter for itself without regard to how much evidence the defendants introduced, the jury convicted all four defendants of illegal possession of the handguns. Defendants' post-trial motion in which they challenged the constitutionality of the New York statute as applied to them, was denied. Both the intermediate appellate court and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, the latter court holding that it was a jury question whether the guns were on Jane Doe's person, treating this question as having been resolved in the prosecution's favor, and concluding that therefore the presumption applied and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The court also summarily rejected the argument that the presumption was unconstitutional as applied in this case. Respondents then filed a

Page 141

habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court, contending that they were denied due process of law by the application of the statutory presumption. The District Court issued the writ, holding that respondents had not "deliberately bypassed" their federal claim by their actions at trial and that the mere presence of two guns in a woman's handbag in a car could not reasonably give rise to the inference that they were in the possession of three other persons in the car. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the New York Court of Appeals had decided respondents' constitutional claim on its merits rather than on any independent state procedural ground that might have barred collateral relief and, without deciding whether the presumption was constitutional as applied in this case, that the statute is unconstitutional on its face.

Held :

1. The District Court had jurisdiction to entertain respondents' claim that the statutory presumption is unconstitutional. There is no support in New York law or the history of this litigation for an inference that the New York courts decided such claim on an independent and adequate state procedural ground that bars the federal courts from addressing the issue on habeas corpus. If neither the state legislature nor the state courts indicate that a federal constitutional claim is barred by some state procedural rule, a federal court implies no disrespect for the State by entertaining the claim. Pp. 147-154.

2. The United States Court of Appeals erred in deciding the facial constitutionality issue. In analyzing a mandatory presumption, which the jury must accept even if it is the sole evidence of an element of an offense (as opposed to a purely permissive presumption, which allows, but does not require, the trier of fact to infer the elemental fact from proof by the prosecutor of the basic one and which places no burden of any kind on the defendant), it is irrelevant that there is ample evidence in the record other than the presumption to support a conviction. Without determining whether the presumption in this case was mandatory, the Court of Appeals analyzed it on its face as if it were, despite the fact that the state trial judge's instructions made it clear that it was not. Pp. 2223-2227.

3. As applied to the facts of this case, the statutory presumption is constitutional. Under the circumstances, the jury would have been entirely reasonable in rejecting the suggestion that the guns were in Jane Doe's sole possession. Assuming that the jury did reject it, the case is tantamount to one in which the guns were lying on the car's floor or seat in the plain view of respondents, and in such a case it is

Page 142

surely rational to infer that each of the respondents was fully aware of the guns' presence and had both the ability and the intent to exercise dominion and control over them. The application of the presumption in this case thus comports with the standard, Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, that there be a "rational connection" between the basic facts that the prosecution proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the latter is "more likely than not to flow from" the former. Moreover, the presumption should not be judged by a more stringent "reasonable doubt" test, insofar as it is a permissive rather than a mandatory presumption. Pp. 163-167.

568 F.2d 998, reversed.

Eileen Shapiro, New York City, for petitioners.

Michael A. Young, New York City, for respondents.

Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A New York statute provides that, with certain exceptions, the presence of a firearm in an automobile is presumptive evidence of its illegal possession by all persons then occupying the vehicle.1 The United States Court of Appeals for the

Page 143

Second Circuit held that respondents may challenge the constitutionality of this statute in a federal habeas corpus proceeding and that the statute is "unconstitutional on its face." 568 F.2d 998, 1009. We granted certiorari to review these holdings and also to consider whether the statute is constitutional in its application to respondents. 439 U.S. 815, 99 S.Ct. 75, 58 L.Ed.2d 106.

Four persons, three adult males (respondents) and a 16-year-old girl (Jane Doe, who is not a respondent here), were jointly tried on charges that they possessed two loaded handguns, a loaded machinegun, and over a pound of heroin found in a Chevrolet in which they were riding when it was stopped for speeding on the New York Thruway shortly after noon on March 28, 1973. The two large-caliber handguns, which together with their ammunition weighed approximately six pounds, were seen through the window of the car by the investigating police officer. They were positioned crosswise in an open handbag on either the front floor or the front seat of the car on the passenger side where Jane Doe was sitting. Jane Doe admitted that the handbag was hers.2 The machine-

Page 144

gun and the heroin were discovered in the trunk after the police pried it open. The car had been borrowed from the driver's brother earlier that day; the key to the trunk could not be found in the car or on the person of any of its occupants, although there was testimony that two of the occupants had placed something in the trunk before embarking in the borrowed car.3 The jury convicted all four of possession of the handguns and acquitted them of possession of the contents of the trunk.

Counsel for all four defendants objected to the introduction into evidence of the two handguns, the machinegun, and the drugs, arguing that the State had not adequately demonstrated a connection between their clients and the contraband. The trial court overruled the objection, relying on the pre-

Page 145

sumption of possession created by the New York statute. Tr. 474-483. Because that presumption does not apply if a weapon is found "upon the person" of one of the occupants of the car, see n. 1, supra, the three male defendants also moved to dismiss the charges relating to the handguns on the ground that the guns were found on the person of Jane Doe. Respondents made this motion both at the close of the prosecution's case and at the close of all evidence. The trial judge twice denied it, concluding that the applicability of the "upon the person" exception was a question of fact for the jury. Tr. 544-557, 589-590.

At the close of the trial, the judge instructed the jurors that they were entitled to infer possession from the defendants' presence in the car. He did not make any reference to the "upon the person" exception in his explanation of the statutory presumption, nor did any of the defendants object to this omission or request alternative or additional instructions on the subject.

Defendants filed a post-trial motion in which they challenged the constitutionality of the New York statute as applied in this case. The challenge was made in support of their argument that the evidence, apart from the presumption, was insufficient to sustain the convictions. The motion was denied, id., at 775-776, and the convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Division without opinion. People v. Lemmons, 49 A.D.2d 639, 370 N.Y.S.2d 243 (1975).

The New York Court of Appeals also affirmed. People v. Lemmons, 40 N.Y.2d 505, 387 N.Y.S.2d 97, 354 N.E.2d 836 (1976). It rejected the argument that as a matter of law the guns were on Jane Doe's person because they were in her pocketbook. Although the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2027 practice notes
  • Connecticut v. Johnson, No. 81-927
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 23 d3 Fevereiro d3 1983
    ...solely from concern for punishing crime without heeding the mode by which it is accomplished." See County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 160, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2226, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979) ("[It is] irrelevant in analyzing a mandatory presump- Page 87 tion . . . that there is am......
  • Williams v. Chrans, No. 87 C 02084.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 5 d4 Julho d4 1990
    ...231 (1985); Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74-75, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1091-92, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985); County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 150-54 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2213-21 n. 10, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). Williams never even attempted to raise this claim in the state courts. Absent a ......
  • Matter of Armstrong, Bankruptcy No. 85-02494
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 22 d2 Outubro d2 1985
    ...1898 Bankruptcy Act, "to exclude beyond peradventure certain liabilities growing out of offenses against good morals." 442 U.S. at 138, 99 S.Ct. at 2213. The United States Courts of Appeal for the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits hold reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement su......
  • Patton v. Warden, Case No. 3:17-cv-078
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 19 d1 Junho d1 2017
    ...court must decide whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction, citing County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 149, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979).Third, the court must decide whether the state procedural forfeiture is an "adequate and indepen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2029 cases
  • Connecticut v. Johnson, No. 81-927
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 23 d3 Fevereiro d3 1983
    ...solely from concern for punishing crime without heeding the mode by which it is accomplished." See County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 160, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2226, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979) ("[It is] irrelevant in analyzing a mandatory presump- Page 87 tion . . . that there is am......
  • Williams v. Chrans, No. 87 C 02084.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • 5 d4 Julho d4 1990
    ...231 (1985); Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 74-75, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1091-92, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985); County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 150-54 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2213-21 n. 10, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). Williams never even attempted to raise this claim in the state courts. Absent a ......
  • Matter of Armstrong, Bankruptcy No. 85-02494
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 22 d2 Outubro d2 1985
    ...1898 Bankruptcy Act, "to exclude beyond peradventure certain liabilities growing out of offenses against good morals." 442 U.S. at 138, 99 S.Ct. at 2213. The United States Courts of Appeal for the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits hold reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement su......
  • Patton v. Warden, Case No. 3:17-cv-078
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 19 d1 Junho d1 2017
    ...court must decide whether the state courts actually enforced the state procedural sanction, citing County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 149, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979).Third, the court must decide whether the state procedural forfeiture is an "adequate and indepen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • ICEBERG AHEAD: WHY COURTS SHOULD PRESUME BIAS IN CASES OF EXTRANEOUS JUROR CONTACTS.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 Nbr. 2, December 2021
    • 22 d3 Dezembro d3 2021
    ...U.S. 717, 723 (1961). (62.) See supra notes 19-23 and accompanying text. (63.) Compare Fed. R. Evid. 301, with Ulster Cnty. Ct. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (64.) Allen, 442 U.S. at 157. (65.) See 2 Kenneth S. Broun, George E. Dix, Edward J. Imwinkelried, David H. Kaye & Eleanor Swift, McCorm......
  • Explaining Dirks
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 d4 Julho d4 2021
    ...facie cases, burdens of production, and burdens of persuasion in employment discrimination cases); Cty. Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 168–77 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting) (discussing allocation of burdens of proof and use of presumptions and inferences in criminal cases); P......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT