Edgar Ariel Gonzalez v. State of Indiana and Pace Team
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 210
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 25, 2016, deputies stopped a rented vehicle; officers smelled marijuana and found drug residue and apparent tampering in the center console.
- A hidden compartment under the center console contained a substance that field-tested positive for heroin; other occupants had cocaine; driver and two passengers later pled to felony narcotics offenses.
- Gonzalez was a passenger who pled guilty to possession of marijuana (Class B misdemeanor); $810 in cash was seized from his pocket at arrest.
- The State filed a civil forfeiture action seeking forfeiture of the $810, alleging it was furnished for, used to facilitate, or traceable to criminal activity.
- At bench trial the State relied largely on the presence of other occupants’ contraband and convictions to connect Gonzalez’s cash to narcotics activity; the trial court ordered forfeiture.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the State failed to prove a nexus between Gonzalez’s money and an enumerated felony or conspiracy to deal narcotics by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved by a preponderance that Gonzalez's $810 was subject to forfeiture under I.C. § 34-24-1-1(a)(2) (furnished for, used to facilitate, or traceable to criminal activity) | The cash should be forfeitable because Gonzalez was present in vehicle containing narcotics, officers found heroin and cocaine on other occupants, and those occupants pled to narcotics felonies—supporting an inference of conspiracy and nexus to the currency | The State presented no evidence tying Gonzalez’s money to any felony narcotics transaction or conspiracy; he only pled to a misdemeanor marijuana possession and there is no proof he knew of or participated in the others’ crimes | Reversed—State failed to establish the required nexus; proximity to contraband alone is incidental/fortuitous and insufficient for forfeiture |
| Whether the statutory presumption under I.C. § 34-24-1-1(d) applied to treat money found on a person as prima facie evidence of facilitation of narcotics offenses | The State argued the presumption applied because crimes "relevant to this case" (dealing/possession of narcotics) occurred in the vehicle | Gonzalez argued his conviction was only for a misdemeanor not listed in § 34-24-1-1(d), so the statutory presumption couldn’t be invoked; the State cannot rely on others’ convictions to trigger the presumption against him | Held that the presumption did not apply to Gonzalez (his offense was a misdemeanor not among the listed felonies); the State may not meet its forfeiture burden merely by proving others’ convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Serrano v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. 2011) (forfeiture requires nexus beyond incidental connection)
- Katner v. State, 655 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1995) (same principle on nexus requirement)
- Lipscomb v. State, 857 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for reviewing sufficiency in civil cases)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (forfeitures disfavored; enforced according to letter and spirit of law)
- Lane v. State, 288 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. 1972) (conspiracy requires concerted action of two or more persons)