In the Texas penal code, Sec. 2.05 establishes rules regarding presumptions in criminal cases. A presumption is a legal inference that a fact exists based on certain evidence or circumstances. This law outlines the consequences of presumptions, both in favor of the prosecution (Subsection (a)) and in favor of the defendant (Subsection (b)).

Key Points:

Presumption in Favor of Prosecution: When a presumption is established in favor of the prosecution, the following consequences apply:

1. The issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, unless the court is convinced that the evidence as a whole clearly prevents a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact.
2. If the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court must charge the jury with specific instructions, including that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury is not bound to find the presumed fact exists even if the facts giving rise to the presumption are proven, and that the state must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the other elements of the offense charged. The jury is also instructed that if they have a reasonable doubt about the existence of the facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and cannot be considered for any purpose.

Presumption in Favor of Defendant: When a presumption is established in favor of the defendant, the following consequences apply:

1. The issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, unless the court is convinced that the evidence as a whole clearly prevents a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact.

2. If the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court must charge the jury with specific instructions, including that the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, that if the state fails to prove that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists, and that even if the jury finds that the presumed fact does not exist, the state must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the other elements of the offense charged. The jury is also instructed that if they have a reasonable doubt about the existence of the presumed fact, the presumption applies and the presumed fact must be considered to exist.

Overall, this law provides guidelines on how presumptions are treated in Texas criminal cases, highlighting the burden of proof and the role of the jury in evaluating presumed facts. It ensures that the jury is properly instructed when dealing with presumptions, both in favor of the prosecution and the defendant, to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in the criminal justice system.

Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), when this code or another penal law establishes a presumption with respect to any fact, it has the following consequences:

(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and

(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as follows:

(A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
(B) that if such facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find;
(C) that even though the jury may find the existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption for any purpose.

(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it has the following consequences:

(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and

(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C) even though the jury may find that the presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 912, ch. 342, Sec. 2, eff. Sept.