What is Prima Facie Evidence as it Relates to Speeding in Texas

In Texas, if a person has been cited for speeding above the posted speed limit, that allegation is considered “prima facie” evidence of the violation.  But what does prima facie mean?  How does that apply to speeding tickets in Texas?  How to you defeat the prima facie argument at trial?  This article is intended to outline the meaning of prima facie as it relates to speeding tickets in Texas.  If you have been issued a speeding ticket and would like to discuss your options with an experienced speeding ticket attorney after reading this article, feel free to contact our office at 214-321-4105.

Speeding Laws In Texas

In Texas there are two main laws that outline the burden of proof a prosecutor has to establish speeding beyond a reasonable doubt.  Those statutes are listed below.  In order to begin a discussion about prima facie it is important to list the statutes and how they interplay with one another to fully understand the prima facie element of speeding.

Sec. 545.351.  MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. 

(a)  An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

(b)  An operator:

(1)  may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;  and

(2)  shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.

(c)  An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:

(1)  the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;

(2)  the operator is approaching and going around a curve;

(3)  the operator is approaching a hill crest;

(4)  the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway;  and

(5)  a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.

Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.

(a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

Prima Facie Evidence

Prima facie derives from Latin.  Its literal meaning is “first face.”  In general, it is interpreted to mean “on first impression” as an adverb.  As an adjective, it means accepted as correct until proven otherwise.  These of course are the general meanings.  Over the years, common law has established a legal meaning to the term prima facie.  These meanings are listed as bullet points below.

• Prima facie evidence is that which is “sufficient as a matter of law to establish a given fact if it is not rebutted or contradicted.  Rangel v. Rangel 2024 WL 2165372 (2024)
• “Prima facie evidence” is evidence that, until its effect is overcome by other evidence, will suffice as proof of a fact in issue, in other words, a prima facie case is one that will entitle a party to recover if no evidence to the contrary is offered by the opposite party.  Texas Campaign for the Environment v. Partners Dewatering International, LLC Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi, 485 S.W.3d 184 (2016)
• A “prima facie case,” in its traditional legal meaning refers to evidence sufficient as a matter of law to establish a given fact if it is not rebutted or contradicted; it is the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the allegation of fact is true. Id.

Prima Facie Evidence as a Rebuttable Presumption

In practice, what is important to understand is that speeding over the limit is considered “enough” to convict a person of the violation.  It will remain enough to convict a person of speeding unless the defendant presents evidence that disproves the presumption.  The key words to remember are that you have to either “rebut” or “contradict” the presumption that speeding above the posted limit is not reasonable and prudent.

This type of proof is usually referred to as a “rebuttable presumption.”  In essence, that is what prima facie evidence is.  It is a rebuttable presumption.  Rebuttable presumptions are normally seen in the context of civil law, not criminal defense.  However, the legislature has applied the presumption to speeding cases in Texas, so defendants need to be aware of how that operates in the context of criminal defense law.

THE BURDEN SHIFTS:  In most criminal defense matters, the State of Texas carries the burden of proof.  However, in the context of prima facie evidence, all the State has to do is present evidence from a police officer that the speed alleged was clocked above the posted speed limit sign.  This is normally done through testimony of the officer who issued the citation.  That then establishes the prima facie evidence needed to convict a person of speeding.  The burden then shifts to the Defendant to rebut that presumption.

REBUTTING PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE:  The key to remember is that the prosecutor has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, a defendant must only rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.  The preponderance of the evidence standard is much lower than the prosecutor’s requirement to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  A preponderance of the evidence standard only requires a jury to determine that it was more likely than not that speed was reasonable and prudent under the conditions that existed on the roadway at the time the citation was issued.

The Impact of Rebutting The Prima Facie Presumption

Once the party against whom a rebuttable presumption is being alleged discharges the burden, then the presumption disappears and is not weighed or treated as evidence.  Case law makes this point clear.

A rebuttable presumption “shift[s] the burden of producing evidence to the party against whom it operates.” In the Interest of Rodriguez, 940 S.W.2d 265, 271 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, writ denied) (citing General Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 359 (Tex.1993)). Once that burden is discharged and evidence contradicting the presumption has been offered, the presumption disappears and is not weighed or treated as evidence. General Motors Corp., 873 S.W.2d at 359. The presumption has no effect on the burden of persuasion. Id.; Rodriguez, 940 S.W.2d at 271.

The case law you find on this subject is all in the area of civil law.  There is no case law that discusses the idea of of prima facie evidence and the concept of rebuttable presumptions in the area of criminal law.  The citations above represent that gap in interpreting these concepts through the lens of a criminal law setting.  However, what the law does make clear is that the burden shifts from the prosecutor to the defendant to overcome the presumption.  And the defendant need only rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.  This point must be made clearly during voire dire to the jury or to the judge in closing argument if the case was tried without a jury.