State v. Crumpler, 2014 Ohio 3211

In Oct. 2010 Khalilah Crumpler was stopped in a Hummer and arrested on an outstanding warrant; police found nearly $700,000 in cash in the vehicle, bundled, wrapped in plastic and dryer sheets; a drug dog alerted to the money.
Police obtained a warrant to search Crumpler’s residence the next day and found jewelry (some still with price tags), over $10,000 in cash (some in a purse, some in a dresser), rubber bands, and plastic wrap; a K-9 alerted to marijuana in a dresser.
Crumpler was not criminally prosecuted for these discoveries; the State filed a civil forfeiture petition under R.C. Chapter 2981 seeking forfeiture of the cash and jewelry.
The trial court denied forfeiture as to the money and jewelry without price tags, but granted forfeiture as to jewelry with price tags; the State appealed.
The appellate court reversed and remanded solely because it was unclear whether the trial court’s decision rested on legal insufficiency or on the weight of the evidence; the court ordered the trial court to clarify its ruling (expressing no view on the ultimate merits).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Crumpler)	Held
Whether State proved by preponderance that cash and jewelry were proceeds or instrumentalities of an offense under R.C. 2981.05	Evidence (large bundled cash, packaging used to defeat K-9, matching creases/denominations, short-term traffic at residence) shows cash/jewelry linked to drug trafficking/money laundering	Crumpler argued cash came from legitimate sources (failed business, sale), lack of direct drug evidence, and some jewelry were gifts	Remanded: appellate court reversed and ordered trial court to clarify whether it based denial on insufficiency or weight; did not decide merits
Whether trial court applied correct standard (sufficiency v. weight) in denying forfeiture	State: court misapplied or failed to find sufficient evidence by preponderance	Crumpler: court found her less-than-credible but relied on that credibility in denying forfeiture	Court held the record was unclear whether the denial was for legal insufficiency or because the court found the State did not carry its burden of persuasion; remand required for clarification

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (distinguishes sufficiency of evidence from weight of the evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (defining standards for sufficiency and manifest weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (establishing that circumstantial and direct evidence carry same probative value)
Ostmann v. Ostmann, 168 Ohio App.3d 59 (2006) (preponderance standard in civil matters; burden discussion)