Antonio Hughley v. State of Indiana, The Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County, and The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
15 N.E.3d 1000
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Police, searching for a car-chase suspect in Aug. 2011, knocked on Antonio Hughley’s door, obtained consent to search, and found apparent cocaine residue and indicia of dealing in plain view, leading to a warrant and discovery of 550 grams of cocaine. Hughley was arrested; $3,871 in mostly $20s was found in his front pocket and his 1977 Buick was seized.
- The State filed a civil forfeiture action seeking the cash and car as proceeds of or facilitators of drug dealing; Hughley answered and denied the allegations.
- The State moved for summary judgment, designating probable-cause affidavits and Hughley’s criminal conviction. The State relied on the forfeiture statute that treats money found on a person committing specified drug offenses as prima facie evidence the money is connected to the offense.
- Hughley responded with a sworn affidavit denying the cash or car were proceeds of or intended for unlawful use; the affidavit was brief and self-serving but competent.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for forfeiture of the cash (denied as to the car). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Hughley’s affidavit was a prohibited general denial under T.R. 56(E). The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on forfeiture of cash under T.R. 56 given the State’s prima facie statutory showing | State: statutory presumptions + criminal conviction establish prima facie case; no genuine factual dispute | Hughley: his sworn affidavit denies the cash was proceeds or intended for illegal use, creating a factual dispute | Court: Hughley’s affidavit, though self‑serving and minimal, was competent and raised a genuine issue of material fact, so summary judgment was improper |
| Whether a self‑serving affidavit may defeat summary judgment | State: a perfunctory, uncorroborated affidavit cannot overcome statutory prima facie evidence | Hughley: an affidavit under oath is competent designated evidence under T.R. 56 and need only create a genuine factual issue | Court: Indiana’s standard allows such affidavits to preclude summary judgment; credibility issues belong to the trier of fact |
| Proper allocation of burdens in Indiana summary judgment practice | State: moving party met burden by negating elements via statutory presumption and conviction | Hughley: once movant designates, non‑movant may designate contrary evidence (affidavit) to shift dispute to factfinder | Court: movant must negate opponent’s claim; once movant designates, the non‑movant’s competent contrary evidence suffices to create a genuine issue |
| Whether forfeiture (a civil action with punitive characteristics) warrants cautious application of summary judgment | State: summary disposition appropriate when statutory presumption is unrebutted | Hughley: forfeiture’s punitive nature counsels against short‑circuiting trial | Court: because forfeiture has criminal‑like consequences, summary judgment should not preclude a party’s day in court when a genuine factual dispute exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (standard for genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment review)
- McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2009) (appellate review and protecting non‑movant’s day in court)
- Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Ind., Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994) (Indiana’s heightened summary judgment burden differs from federal practice)
- Clipp v. Weaver, 451 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind. 1983) (summary judgment is a blunt instrument; not a substitute for trial)
- Deuitch v. Fleming, 746 N.E.2d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (criticism that self‑serving affidavits can defeat summary judgment)
- Katner v. State, 655 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1995) (forfeitures are civil but carry criminal and punitive characteristics)
- Bochnowski v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 571 N.E.2d 282 (Ind. 1991) (summary judgment improper when weighing evidence is necessary)
- Gaboury v. Ireland Road Grace Brethren, Inc., 446 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind. 1983) (defining a ‘genuine’ factual issue as one requiring a trier of fact to resolve differing accounts)