On July 19,1949, а machine gun and ammunition for it were found in a one-room store, occupied — or so the jury could have concluded — by the brothers Terra and used by them
The presumption provision, broad in scope, applies not only where, as here, the machine gun is found in a “ room, ’ ’ but also where it is discovered in a “ dwelling,” “ structure ” or vehicle ”. Mindful of the policy that courts decide only those constitutional questions necessary for determination of the casе as presented (see, e.g., Schieffelin v. Goldsmith,
Presumptions are no innovation in the fiеld of criminal law. For many years legislatures have been enacting statutes providing that certain facts, which in themselves would be insufficient to justify a conviction, shаll, when proved, constitute presumptive or prima facie evidence of the existence of the principal fact in issue. Although such provisions undoubtеdly facilitate proof of guilt and the task of the prosecution, they are not, for that reason, to be condemned. However, the presumptive deviсe provided for may not be employed in such manner as to impair the right to trial by jury, relieve the prosecution of its .burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise deny to persons accused of crime, “ those fundamental rights and immutable principles of justice which are embraced within the cоnception of due process of law.” (Bailey v. Alabama,
The validity of a presumption statute, the permissibility of the presumption created, depend, therefore, upon whether, based on life and life’s experiences, a rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed may be said to exist. (See People v. Pieri, 269 N. Y. 315, 324; People v. Cannon, supra,
Turning to the case bеfore us, there can be no doubt about the “ sinister significance ” of proof of a machine gun in a room occupied by an accused or about the reasonableness of the connection between its illegal possession and occupancy of the room where it is kept. Persons who occupy a room, who either reside in it or use it in the conduct and operation of a business or other venture — and that is what in its present context the statutory term “ оccupying ” signifies (see Webster’s New International Dictionary [2d ed., 1948], p. 1648; cf. People v. Simon,
On the basis of somewhat similar reasoning, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the validity of a statute providing that the existence of a liquor still upon ‘ ‘ real estate ’ ’ constitutes prima facie evidence that those “ in actual possession ’ ’ of the land knew of the location of the still and may, on the strength of that presumption, be held guilty of the сrime of permitting a still to be operated upon their property. (See Hawes v. Georgia,
Exceрt for law enforcement officials and the few other groups expressly exempted from the application of subdivision 1-a of section 1897, a machine gun is never permissible equipment or standard stock in trade of any legitimate business or profession, and rarely, if ever, is its possessor either law-abiding or engaged upon a lawful task. If, therefore, it is reasonable — and we have shown that it is — to presume possession of a machine gun from evidence that defendants wеre occupying the room in which it was kept, it follows almost as matter of course that it is rational further to infer an illegal possession, since a machine gun is property ‘ ‘ not likely * * * to be found in the possession of innocent parties.” (Adams v. New York,
The sеction 1897 presumption, with which we are concerned, is to be contrasted with subdivision (f) of section 2 of the Federal Firearms Act, declared unconstitutional in Tot v. United States (supra,
The statute here challenged visits no oppressive burden upon an accused. It gives him every opportunity to rebut the presumption — for which, as we have seen, there is fair and reasonable basis — merely calling upon him to explain the highly sinister and suspicious proof that a death-dealing mаchine gun was found in a room occupied by him. And, even if he offers no explanation, the jury may still refuse to convict. The burden of proof upon the entire case, the duty of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, remains as ever with the prosecution. Defendant’s right to a fair trial continues undiminished; no hardship is imposed, no constitutional right or safeguard impaired.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye and Froessel, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.