Defendant was convicted of the crime of negligent homicide and appealed, alleging that the Louisiana statute, making violation of a statute or ordinance presumptive evidence of criminal negligence, was repugnant to the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Held, affirmed. The effect of the statute is merely to shift the burden of introducing evidence of one element of the crime charged: that of criminal negligence. The presumption does not operate as a prima facie presumption of guilt of the crime -and the state must still prove every element of the offense. State v. Nix, (La. 1947) 31 S. (2d) 1.
C. E. Becraft,
CRIMINAL LAW-MANSLAUGHTER-EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF STATUTE OR ORDINANCE ON CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss4/14