Abolishing The Rule Against Inference Stacking In Texas.pdf

A conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them is an inference. The origin of the rules against basing an inference upon an inference or a presumption upon a presumption is obscure, but despite the almost unanimous criticisms of legal scholars and of those courts which have gone into the matter at any length, the "rules" have shown amazing vitality. In its 1969 decision in Briones v. Levine's Department Store, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court noted "the general rule in [is] this state that an inference may not be based upon another inference." Commentators have condemned this rule for a century. The Fifth Circuit, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and courts across the country have repudiated the rule. The time has come for the Texas Supreme Court to join them and plunge a much-needed stake through the heart of the so-called rule against inference stacking.

Texas law governing the proper role of inferences in civil cases is hopelessly confused. Some of the Texas Supreme Court's decisions over the past three decades appear to reject the rule, but more recently, the Court has cited the rule. Reflecting this inconsistency, some lower courts reject the rule while others apply it. When courts do apply the rule, they usually do so improperly—treating it as a two-inferences-and-you're-out bar. The Texas Supreme Court should do what the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did in 2007: bring Texas into the national mainstream by repudiating the rule against inference stacking, instructing lower courts to avoid inference-stacking language, and clarifying that the proper review of inferences asks simply whether they are reasonable in light of the evidence.

To infer is "to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence." To draw inferences, then, is to engage in "a process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established... is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted." A century ago, the United States Supreme Court confirmed "that it is the province of the jury to hear the evidence and by their verdict to settle the issues of fact." This pronouncement reflects the jury's core role—framed by the Seventh Amendment—as "a valuable safeguard to liberty" and "the very palladium of free government." In deciding cases, juries consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence tends to prove or disprove an ultimate fact in issue, while circumstantial evidence tends to prove or disprove a fact, which—while not itself in issue—by inference tends to prove or disprove an ultimate fact in issue.

Inferences are critical to the jury's mission of deciding truth. Without inferences, proof by circumstantial evidence would be nearly impossible—"like Achilles of Zeno's paradox, we might never reach a conclusion." Thus, "select[ing] from among conflicting inferences" is part of "[t]he very essence of [the jury's] function." The rule against inference stacking has more modest origins than one might assume. Rather than springing from some seminal court ruling, the rule originated with a single evidence commentator in the early 1800s.