A criminal defendant was prosecuted for theft of tons of steel casings piled up on a vacant rural parcel of land. After taking the material, the authorities arrested him and told him that the land and the steel on it were owned by the state government. He defended on the basis that he did not have any criminal intent to steal because he reasonably believed that the steel casings were abandoned and rusting away needlessly. The judge instructed the jury that a man intends the natural consequences of his actions, and that if the defendant took the casings intentionally, then there was a presumption of sufficient mens rea to establish criminal intent. The act of taking in itself established a legal presumption of felonious intent. The defendant was convicted and he appealed on the basis that the judge's applying of a presumption of criminal intent was erroneous. What is the likely decision on appeal?

1. The defendant could not have believed that so much steel was abandoned, and it was proper to apply a presumption of criminal intent by the fact of taking it.
2. The presumption here invaded the fact-finding province of the jury and in effect applied a legal presumption of guilt simply from the act of taking the property.
3. The presumption of guilty intent was proper because it can never be an innocent act to take property simply because it appears to be abandoned.
4. The presumption was improper because the court is not allowed to instruct the jury to make presumptions of any kind.