Rebuttable presumption

A conclusion as to the existence or nonexistence of a fact that a judge or jury must draw when certain evidence has been introduced and admitted as true in a lawsuit but that can be contradicted by evidence to the contrary.

A rebuttable presumption can be overturned only if the evidence contradicting it is true and if a reasonable person of average intelligence could logically conclude from the evidence that the presumption is no longer valid. For example, a person who has been judicially declared incompetent is presumed incompetent unless there is sufficient proof, usually in the form of medical testimony, that the person has regained competency.

In criminal law, there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime charged.

Both in common law and in civil law, a rebuttable presumption (in Latin, praesumptio iuris tantum) is an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. A rebuttable presumption is often associated with prima facie evidence.

Rebuttable presumptions in criminal law are somewhat controversial in that they do effectively reverse the presumption of innocence in some cases. For example, in the United Kingdom, Section 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes the rebuttable presumption that a person who is unconscious or asleep cannot consent to sexual activity.

See also

Look up presumption in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Burden of proof
• Conclusive presumption
• Prima facie

This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v • d • e

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)