## Facts

- Police stopped an automobile for speeding in Ulster County, New York.
- The car contained three adult men and a 16-year-old girl.
- Officers discovered two loaded handguns placed crosswise in the girl’s open handbag on the front passenger side floor or seat where she sat.
- The men were jointly tried for, among other charges, illegal possession of the two handguns; other charges included possession of a machine gun and possession of more than one pound of heroin found in the trunk.
- Defendants objected to admission of the handguns, arguing insufficient proof connecting the men to the firearms; the trial court relied on a New York statute treating the presence of a firearm in an automobile as presumptive evidence of illegal possession by all occupants, subject to exceptions.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that it was entitled to infer possession from presence in the automobile, must consider all circumstances supporting or contradicting the inference, and must decide the matter for itself.
- The jury convicted the three men of illegal possession of the two handguns and acquitted all defendants on the machine gun and heroin counts.

## Issues

1. Whether federal habeas review was available where the State had not clearly applied a state procedural bar to the defendants’ federal constitutional claim.
2. Whether the automobile-firearm presumption, as used in this trial, violated due process by permitting a finding of possession without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the statute was unconstitutional on its face, as opposed to only in particular applications.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that federal courts could entertain the habeas claims because the State had not clearly indicated that a state procedural rule barred the constitutional challenge.
- The Court held the presumption was constitutional as applied because, under the instructions given, it functioned as a permissive inference rather than a mandatory presumption or burden shift.
- The Court reversed the Second Circuit’s facial invalidation, concluding the respondents could not obtain broad facial relief when the statute was valid as applied to them and constitutional avoidance counseled against unnecessary facial rulings.

## Legal Principles

- A permissive inference allows, but does not require, the factfinder to infer an elemental fact from proof of a basic fact and imposes no burden on the defendant.
- A permissive inference satisfies due process if, in light of the record, there is a rational connection between the basic fact and the inferred fact such that the inferred fact is more likely than not to flow from the basic fact.
- Mandatory presumptions and burden-shifting devices raise distinct due process concerns because they can reduce the State’s obligation to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Courts generally should not strike down a statute on its face when the statute is constitutional as applied to the litigants before the court, and parties typically lack standing to challenge hypothetical unconstitutional applications to others.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld New York’s automobile-firearm presumption as applied because the jury instructions made it a permissive inference rationally supported by the circumstances, while rejecting a facial invalidation and permitting federal habeas review absent a clear state procedural bar.


County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979)