Commonwealth of PA v. One (1) 1992 Volkswagen Passat -- Appeal of: J. Kokinda
40 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Kokinda pled guilty but mentally ill in 2009 to four counts of unlawful contact with a minor and one count of criminal use of a communication facility after online sexual communications with an undercover agent he believed was a 12‑year‑old; he admitted arriving at a prearranged meeting in his 1992 Volkswagen Passat (the Vehicle).
- The Commonwealth filed a forfeiture petition under 18 Pa.C.S. §3141 seeking title to the Vehicle as property that "facilitated" the sex‑offense convictions; the Vehicle had been seized at the planned meet location in August 2007.
- At the 2015 forfeiture hearing the Commonwealth introduced testimony placing Kokinda in the Vehicle at the meeting site and certified title records showing Kokinda as title owner; Kokinda produced an affidavit from former titleholders claiming an oral arrangement and disputed ownership.
- The trial court credited the Commonwealth’s evidence, found a sufficient nexus between the Vehicle and the crime, and ordered forfeiture; Kokinda appealed pro se.
- This Court affirmed, concluding the Vehicle facilitated the offense because it transported Kokinda to the location where he intended unlawful sexual contact (or to a place where such contact would occur). Judge Leavitt dissented, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove the Vehicle was tied to the specific offenses of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Kokinda's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3141 forfeiture requires a "sufficient nexus" between vehicle and crime | Vehicle did not facilitate unlawful contact because the offense was completed via online communications; travel is not an element | Vehicle facilitated the crime because it transported Kokinda to the prearranged meeting where he intended sexual contact | Forfeiture affirmed: substantial nexus shown because vehicle transported defendant to location of intended illicit contact |
| Whether Kokinda was entitled to a jury trial on factual issues (ownership) | Waiver of jury violated his Article I, §6 rights; factual ownership should be jury question | Kokinda failed to timely demand a jury under Pa.R.C.P. 1007.1; right was waived | No jury; Kokinda waived the right by not timely demanding one |
| Whether title evidence was insufficient and ownership contested | Title packet not incontrovertible; affidavit from Jahnkes showed Kokinda not owner | Trial court as factfinder could credit title records and Kokinda's dominion/possession | Trial court’s credibility determination upheld; records + possession sufficient to find legal ownership |
| Whether Kokinda could relitigate innocence/collaterally attack convictions at forfeiture | He should be allowed to prove innocence; forfeiture requires proof beyond conviction | §3141 requires only that the person has been convicted; collateral attack is improper in forfeiture proceedings | Forfeiture limited to those convicted; collateral attack not permitted in this proceeding; convictions stand for §3141 purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. 502-504 Gordon Street, 607 A.2d 839 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (defines "sufficient or substantial nexus" for forfeiture statutes)
- United States v. One 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser, 824 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (vehicle forfeitable where used to transport person to meeting with undercover posing as minor)
- United States v. One 2006 Toyota Camry Solara SLE, 181 F. Supp. 3d 75 (D.D.C. 2013) (vehicle had substantial connection where defendant drove to meet an undercover officer for illicit sexual conduct)
- Commonwealth v. One 1979 Lincoln Four Door Sedan, 496 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. 1985) (forfeiture upheld where vehicle delivered food sustaining illegal drug operation — nexus need not be direct carriage of contraband)
- Commonwealth v. Reed, 9 A.3d 1138 (Pa. 2010) (intent for unlawful contact may be inferred from circumstances; in‑person meeting can constitute attempt)
- Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet, 160 A.3d 153 (Pa. 2017) (Eighth Amendment "instrumentality"/significant‑relationship discussion relevant to forfeiture challenges)