Generally speaking, an “inference” is some fact that is deemed logically true based on other known facts, even though the inferred fact was not seen or shown by other evidence.

For example, suppose your child is sitting at a table, and a slice of cake is on a plate on the table in front of your child. You turn away for a minute. When you turn back, the slice of cake is missing, and your child is chewing with a smile on his face. For our hypothetical, we will also assume that no one else was in the room.

From known facts and from logic, you can correctly infer that your child has eaten the cake. In this hypothetical, the “known facts” include:

• Cake is something to be eaten
• Chewing is a sign that something is being eaten
• Eating cake often brings a smile to a person’s face
• The slice of cake was there a minute or two ago, but is now gone
• You did not take the missing slice of cake and
• No one else was in the room

As noted, from these facts, the only logical conclusion is that your child ate the slice of cake. Our hypothetical is an example of an inference and shows how a fact can be inferred as true even though there is no direct evidence. After all, in this hypothetical, you were turned away when the bite of cake was taken and eaten.

Now, to refute and rebut the logical conclusion — the inference — some other and better evidence must be presented. For example, maybe your child denies eating the cake and says, “the dog ate the cake.” On the one hand, this is no good as a rebuttal if you do not own a dog or if the dog is in another room in the house. On the other hand, it might be a good rebuttal to the logical inference if your dog is under the table and, upon looking under the table, the dog’s muzzle is covered in cake frosting.

Inferences are allowed under Maryland’s criminal law

In Maryland, inferences are allowed in criminal cases. A good example comes from the recent case of State v. Ellerbe, Case No. 640, September Term, 2024 (Appellate Court of Maryland, 2025). That case involved the inference that possession of stolen property was evidence that the person in possession was also the person who stole the property. The facts of the case involved a burglary of an occupied home in Charlestown, Maryland. Among other things, the burglars stole a rifle, other personal items, and approximately $15,000.00 in cash.

Several weeks later, after obtaining a search warrant, the police searched Ellerbe’s residence and discovered the rifle and several other items stolen from the Charlestown home. Ellerbe was charged with several crimes, including burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, unlawful possession of firearms, and more.

At his trial, the court correctly allowed the jury to consider that Ellerbe’s possession of the rifle and other stolen items was evidence that Ellerbe was one of the two burglars who stole the rifle and other items.

Ellerbe’s attorney argued against allowing the jury to consider the interference since Ellerbe had an explanation. Ellerbe claimed that a friend of one of his friends came to Ellerbe’s house and “started laying stuff out” and asking if he — Ellerbe — “wanted anything, like to buy.” During his testimony at trial, Ellerbe claimed that he DID purchase some of the items and that he also allowed the individual to keep other items at his house.

The Maryland criminal court judge allowed the jury to consider the inference and reasonableness of Ellerbe’s explanation. Just like our hypothetical with the cake and the dog, an inference can be refuted, but the explanation has to be reasonable and convincing. In Ellerbe’s case, the jury was not convinced, and Ellerbe was convicted. His conviction was upheld on appeal.

Contact Waldorf, Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions, contact our office to speak to an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer at (301) 870-1200. We are Waldorf, MD, Criminal Defense lawyers. Our address is 11701 Central Avenue, Suite 200, Waldorf, MD 20601.