$3,941 in US Currency, and, Deonta Anderson, Korjonta Anderson, and Beonica Johnson-Grant v. Rodney Cummings, Prosecuting Attorney for the 50th Judicial Circuit for the State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A02-1607-MI-1564
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Officers surveilled a residence after a tip about a stolen police tactical bag; they observed visitors including Deonta Anderson and Iahjhay Cloyd coming and going from the apartment.
- Officers knocked, smelled burnt marijuana, and observed Cloyd with a white, rock-like substance; searches led to discovery of cocaine (≈40 grams) in a shoebox and a handgun between a mattress and box spring.
- During arrest/searches, officers found approximately $3,941 on Deonta in multiple locations (front pocket, underwear, rolled cuff of sweatpants).
- The State filed a civil forfeiture action claiming the cash was derived from or intended for use in a pattern of racketeering activity (dealing cocaine); Deonta initially defaulted but default was vacated and he appeared with counsel.
- At bench trial Deonta, his brother Korjonta, and their mother Beonica claimed the cash was part of a prior settlement saved for a car purchase; the trial court rejected their account and granted forfeiture of the seized funds.
- Defendants appealed, asserting improper service timing (waived), insufficient evidence linking the funds to racketeering, an Excessive Fines Clause challenge, and alleged misallocation of excess funds (Common School Fund).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service of process timing | Service occurred >20 days before judgment | Court erred; finding inaccurate and prejudicial | Waived by defendants because they participated and did not timely object |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking cash to racketeering | Cash was proceeds/for use in dealing cocaine; facts (cocaine packaging, scale, large amount, cash hidden, movements) support link | Cash was legitimate settlement money given for a car; denominations/amounts explained by family testimony | Judgment supported: preponderance showed link to racketeering; credibility issues and circumstantial evidence supported forfeiture |
| Excessive Fines Clause (Eighth Amendment) | Forfeiture is punitive but proportional given potential Level 2 felony penalties | Forfeiture is excessive relative to offense gravity | Not excessive: forfeiture amount far below statutory maximum fines for comparable felony conduct |
| Allocation of seized funds (Common School Fund) | Excess funds should be deposited to Common School Fund | Trial court rightly deducted law‑enforcement/criminal-investigation expenses before distribution | No error: trial court may except law‑enforcement expenses from transfer to common school fund |
Key Cases Cited
- Enderle v. Sharman, 422 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (participation in proceedings without timely objection waives certain procedural defects)
- $100 and a Black Cadillac v. State, 822 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for appellate sufficiency review and discussion of forfeiture proportionality)
- State v. Timbs, 62 N.E.3d 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (discussion of Excessive Fines Clause in civil forfeiture context)
- Serrano v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. 2011) (allocation of forfeiture proceeds and exceptions for law‑enforcement expenses)
- Coleman v. State, 952 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (aiding and abetting/conspiracy liability and felony-level sentencing comparison)
- Bajakajian v. United States, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (forfeiture is punitive and violates Excessive Fines Clause if grossly disproportional)