State v. Robinson
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
KONENKAMP, Justice.
[¶ 1.] In this case, the jury was instructed that passing a check against insufficient funds created the presumption that the passer knew there were not sufficient funds in the account. The jurors were never told, however, that they need not accept the presumption, but if they did, that the passer’s knowledge still had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt considering all the evidence. Thus, the instruction improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.
Background
[¶2.] Michael Robinson managed 1-29…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Francis v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Carella v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- State v. NelsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. KarlenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. DillonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. BowkerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. ThomasSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. AsmussenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. PageSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.