State v. Holder, 502 P.3d 1039

Police stopped two vehicles traveling together; the passenger vehicle (driven by Alyssa Holler) was searched and found to contain ~44 pounds of marijuana (packages >600 grams). Holder was identified as driver of the other car and later arrested.
Holler testified that Holder organized the trip, paid for the rental car, and coordinated via phone/text; the State introduced call/text logs corroborating this.
Holder was charged with possession with intent to distribute (based on possession of ≥450 grams) and conspiracy to distribute; he did not testify.
The district court instructed the jury using PIK Crim. 4th 57.022, a permissive-inference instruction stating the jury "may accept or reject" an inference of intent if defendant possessed ≥450 grams.
Holder appealed, arguing (1) the permissive-inference instruction did not fairly and accurately reflect K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5705(e)’s statutory rebuttable presumption and (2) the statute’s rebuttable presumption is facially unconstitutional. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Holder)	Held
Whether the permissive-inference jury instruction (PIK 57.022) fairly and accurately reflected K.S.A. 21-5705(e)’s rebuttable presumption	Instruction followed PIK pattern and did not shift burden; was legally proper	Instruction misstates statute: statute creates a rebuttable presumption (jurors must infer intent once predicate proved unless defendant rebuts), but PIK gives only a permissive inference	The instruction does not fairly and accurately state the statutory rebuttable presumption and is legally inappropriate as a statutory-presumption instruction; as a permissive inference it also lacked evidentiary context (450g threshold unexplained), but error was harmless and did not require reversal
Whether Holder may facially challenge K.S.A. 21-5705(e) as unconstitutional	Panel argued Holder lacked standing to raise facial challenge; State did not apply the statutory presumption at trial	Holder contended the rebuttable presumption impermissibly shifts burden and is facially unconstitutional	Court declined to reach the constitutional merits; any statutory defect was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the statutory presumption was not applied at trial and the conviction stands under the substantive offense provision

Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) (adverse presumptions that relieve prosecution of burden violate due process)
County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979) (inferences/presumptions form a continuum; validity depends on link between basic and elemental facts)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985) (distinguishes mandatory, conclusive, rebuttable presumptions and permissive inferences)
State v. Harkness, 252 Kan. 510 (1993) (adopts Francis framework; distinguishes mandatory vs. rebuttable presumptions and permissive inferences)
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (jury instructions must fairly and accurately state applicable law)
State v. Wimbley, 313 Kan. 1029 (2021) (assess challenged instruction in context of all jury instructions)
State v. Owens, 314 Kan. 210 (2021) (standards for reviewing jury instruction error)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (1989) (addressing mandatory-presumption instruction error and remand for harmless-error analysis)
State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 (2016) (applies Chapman harmlessness standard in Kansas constitutional-error review)