2018 Ohio 624
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 8, 2015 police seized $5,839 from Terrell Travis during a traffic stop; a canine sniff allegedly detected a "target odor." Travis denied a paper trail for the money.
- The State filed a civil forfeiture complaint (May 2, 2016) alleging the currency was contraband, proceeds, or an instrumentality related to drug offenses; Travis was later indicted and convicted in Seneca County on drug charges.
- Travis (pro se) sought return of the money, disputed the State’s nexus allegations, and argued widespread drug residue on currency undermined the State’s claim.
- Nonparty Karen Wright later filed to intervene claiming the money belonged to her; the trial court denied intervention and denied Wright’s summary-judgment motion as moot.
- The trial court granted forfeiture; Travis appealed raising four assignments of error (nexus/forfeiture, denial of summary judgment, denial of joinder/intervention, and denial of continuance).
- The Sixth District affirmed, noting the trial transcript was not in the record and therefore the court must presume regularity and sufficient evidence to support the forfeiture; it also found no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance or intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Travis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the seized currency was subject to forfeiture under R.C. 2981.02 (contraband/proceeds/instrumentality) | Currency was contraband/proceeds/instrumentality connected to drug offenses and detected by canine; Travis had no paper trail | Travis: money not illegal; his unrelated guilty pleas don’t link to the cash; contamination of currency is common | Affirmed: appellate court presumed sufficient evidence in record; forfeiture upheld |
| Whether trial court erred denying Travis’s motion for summary judgment | N/A (State opposed forfeiture) | Travis sought summary judgment returning funds | Denial not reversible on appeal given record deficiencies and trial outcome |
| Whether trial court erred denying motion to add/permit intervention by Karen Wright | State opposed intervention; motion to intervene was unsupported | Travis/Wright: Wright owned the money and entrusted Travis to transport it | Intervention denied; Sixth Dist. noted Wright did not appeal denial and affirmed trial court |
| Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion | Denial proper because movant provided no details of Wright’s interest or proposed filings; trial court acted within discretion | Travis: continuance needed to allow Wright to intervene and file motions; no prejudice to State | Denial upheld as not an abuse of discretion; motion lacked adequate reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose Chevrolet, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (1988) (appellant must ensure record on appeal contains necessary portions for review)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant bears burden to show error by reference to record)
- Unger v. State, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion; reasons must be evaluated under case circumstances)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (no mechanical test for continuance denials; due process depends on circumstances)