Delaware § 306 No conclusive presumptions; rebuttable presumptions and proof thereof

Delaware Statutes

§ 306 — No conclusive presumptions; rebuttable presumptions and proof thereof

Delaware § 306

Title11

PartDelaware Criminal Code

Ch. 3PROVING AND DISPROVING CRIMINAL GUILT

This text of Delaware § 306 (No conclusive presumptions; rebuttable presumptions and proof thereof) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Del. Code tit. 11, § 306 (2026).

Text

(a)There are no conclusive presumptions in this Criminal Code, and all conclusive presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are hereby abolished.

(b)Rebuttable presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are preserved except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Criminal Code.

(c)Notwithstanding any other provision of this Criminal Code, the following rebuttable presumptions are expressly preserved:

(1)A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of the person’s act.

(2)A person found in possession of goods acquired as a result of the commission of a recent crime is presumed to have committed the crime.

(d)Proof of a fact tending to create a rebuttable presumption not inconsistent with this Criminal

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(a) There are no conclusive presumptions in this Criminal Code, and all conclusive presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are hereby abolished.

(b) Rebuttable presumptions formerly existing in the criminal law of this State are preserved except to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Criminal Code.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Criminal Code, the following rebuttable presumptions are expressly preserved:

(1) A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of the person’s act.

(2) A person found in possession of goods acquired as a result of the commission of a recent crime is presumed to have committed the crime.

(d) Proof of a fact tending to create a rebuttable presumption not inconsistent with this Criminal Code or a presumption created by this Criminal Code constitutes prima facie evidence of the presumed conclusion.

(e) The court may tell the jury of the existence of the presumption, and if it does so the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction that the presumption does not relieve the State of its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the jury may convict the defendant, despite the existence of evidence tending to rebut the presumption, if they find no reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt.