Commonwealth v. Jackson
53 A.3d 952
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Jackson appeals a June 9, 2011 forfeiture order directing $8,603.00 to be forfeited under the Forfeiture Act after an acquittal on drug possession charges.
- Eventual stop on June 28, 2009 yielded $8,603.00 in cash and, later, 93 packets of heroin, crack cocaine, and marijuana observed where Jackson sat.
- Jackson was charged with possession with intent to deliver but was found not guilty at trial held July 22, 2010.
- A petition for forfeiture was filed; Jackson was incarcerated and did not attend the June 9, 2011 forfeiture hearing; his grandmother attended instead.
- The trial court granted forfeiture; on appeal, the court vacates and remands due to notice deficiencies, potential illegal-search issues, and questions about evidence weight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of forfeiture after acquittal | Jackson asserts forfeiture after acquittal is improper. | Commonwealth argues forfeiture may proceed independently of criminal conviction. | Acquittal does not bar forfeiture; remand to assess suppression and independent evidence. |
| Notice and attendance at forfeiture hearing for an incarcerated owner | Jackson did not receive proper notice enabling attendance. | Commonwealth contends sufficient opportunity to respond via written answers. | Notice and attendance rights violated; remand to determine proper notice and attendance. |
| Validity of evidence used to support forfeiture given alleged illegal search | Evidence may be tainted by illegal search/seizure. | If independent, unsuppressed contraband evidence exists, forfeiture may proceed. | Remand to determine if evidence was suppressed and whether independent unsuppressed contraband evidence exists. |
| Forfeiture against weight of credible evidence | Weight of credible evidence may not support forfeiture. | Evidence sufficiency standard governs; weigh credibility at trial. | Cannot determine on record; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Heater, 899 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Super. 2006) (forfeiture purpose is to eliminate economic incentives of drug activity)
- Commonwealth v. 542 Ontario St., 989 A.2d 411 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (civil in rem forfeiture; nexus between property and illegal activity not require criminal conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Anthony, 613 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 1992) (no requirement of criminal conviction for forfeiture of contraband)
- Commonwealth v. McJett, 811 A.2d 104 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture proceedings; tainted evidence cannot support forfeiture without independent evidence)
- Commonwealth v. $1,800 U.S. Currency, 679 A.2d 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (incarcerated owners must be given meaningful notice to attend forfeiture hearing)
- Commonwealth v. 803 Cash, 589 A.2d 735 (Pa. Super. 1991) (notice must enable actual attendance; bare notice insufficient when owner incarcerated)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 757 A.2d 354 (Pa. Supreme. 2000) (principles regarding notice/attendance in forfeiture proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Mosley, 702 A.2d 857 (Pa. Supreme. 1997) (option to answer interrogatories does not substitute for in-person hearing)