In the Case of Lindsey V

In the case of Lindsey v. Commonwealth, the defendant was convicted of petty larceny in a Virginia criminal court. The prosecution benefited from an instruction to the jury that indicated that where a defendant concealed personal property while on the premises of a retail store was evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner of the merchandise. The defendant contended that this jury instruction placed the burden of proving lack of intent on the defendant that was contrary to constitutional interpretations of the burden of proof by the U.S. Supreme Court because it had the effect of reversing the burden of proof. The reviewing court held that:

A) a presumption that has been recognized for decades that reverse the burden of proof as to one element of a criminal case does not violate due process or fundamental fairness.
B) rebutting the government's proof in this case was a type of affirmative defense for which evidence the defendant must introduce if he wished to prevail and be acquitted.
C) placing the burden of proof for the defendant to rebut the government's case was not a violation of due process.
D) the jury instruction that was given was merely a permissible inference that the jury was free to ignore if it chose to do so and it did not constitute a reversal of the burden of proof.