Lindsey v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 1

Defendant James Lindsey was tried in Arlington Circuit Court for petit larceny (third or subsequent offense) for allegedly concealing hats in a retail store and was convicted; sentence: seven days jail.
Store employee observed Lindsey hiding hats; manager called police; a confrontation occurred and Lindsey was arrested.
Trial court gave Instruction 16 (from Virginia Model Jury Instructions): "Willful concealment of goods or merchandise while still on the premises of a store is evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner of the value of the goods or merchandise, unless there is believable evidence to the contrary."
Lindsey proposed a narrower instruction (Instruction O) phrased permissively; the trial court refused it and the jury was also instructed on presumption of innocence and that the Commonwealth must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion; Lindsey appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court arguing Instruction 16 impermissibly created a mandatory rebuttable presumption, violating the Due Process Clause.

Issue	Lindsey's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Instruction 16 created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption that shifted burden of proof on intent	Instruction 16 is phrased as mandatory ("is evidence ... unless"), requiring the jury to infer intent from concealment unless defendant rebuts, thus shifting burden and violating due process	Instruction 16 states a prima facie rule under Va. Code § 18.2-103 and merely permits an inference; it is a permissive inference and does not relieve the Commonwealth of its burden beyond a reasonable doubt	Court held Instruction 16 created a permissive inference (not a mandatory presumption); giving it was proper and refusal of Instruction O was not error

Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985) (distinguishes mandatory rebuttable presumptions from permissible permissive inferences)
Dobson v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 71 (2000) (upheld instruction as a permissive inference that did not relieve prosecution of burden)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (Due Process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) (examines jury instructions that may create unconstitutional presumptions)
Ulster Cnty. Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979) (discusses differences between permissive inferences and mandatory presumptions)