State v. $18,000, 974 N.W.2d 290

On August 1, 2020, a Seward County deputy stopped Christopher Bouldin on I-80, searched his vehicle, and seized $18,000 in cash.
The officer testified a certified drug dog alerted to the vehicle, and that Bouldin was traveling from Virginia to Colorado.
Evidence presented: photos of marijuana on Bouldin’s phone from Virginia and Colorado; texts from a Colorado number showing marijuana and “THC wax”; Bouldin’s texts requesting “8 widow” and “8 goat”; officer opinion that the texts reflected an agreement to purchase.
State introduced Bouldin’s prior Utah conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute.
The district court (after a bench trial at which only the officer testified and Bouldin did not appear) found by clear and convincing evidence the cash was used or intended to be used to facilitate a controlled-substance offense and ordered forfeiture.
Bouldin appealed, arguing (1) the court applied the wrong burden of proof (should be beyond a reasonable doubt) and (2) the evidence was insufficient to forfeit the money.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bouldin)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Proper burden of proof for forfeiture under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431	Statute requires beyond a reasonable doubt	Legislature amended § 28-431 in 2016 to require clear and convincing evidence; district court followed statute	Court: Legislature replaced beyond a reasonable doubt with clear and convincing evidence; district court correct to apply that standard
Sufficiency of evidence to forfeit $18,000	Evidence was insufficient (implicitly under beyond a reasonable doubt)	Evidence (dog alert, texts/photos, travel, prior conviction) supports finding the money was used/intended to be used to facilitate drug offense by clear and convincing evidence	Court: Bouldin failed to adequately brief this issue; did not argue sufficiency under the applicable standard, so appellate court declined to address it

State v. Franco, 257 Neb. 15, 594 N.W.2d 633 (1999) (previously treated § 28-431 forfeiture proceedings as criminal and applied beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard under earlier statute)
State v. 1987 Jeep Wagoneer, 241 Neb. 397, 488 N.W.2d 546 (1992) (forfeiture cases under former § 28-431 were subject to beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard)
State v. Riessland, 310 Neb. 262, 965 N.W.2d 13 (2021) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Marcuzzo v. Bank of the West, 290 Neb. 809, 862 N.W.2d 281 (2015) (appellant must identify factual and legal bases for assignments of error in brief)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763, 848 N.W.2d 571 (2014) (appellate court will not address arguments that merely restate assignments of error without developed argument)