State v. Horning
2016 ND 10
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Horning was stopped for a traffic violation; a drug dog alerted and officers searched his vehicle and person, finding methamphetamine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a cooler with $15,960, and $460 on Horning (total $16,420).
- The State moved to forfeit the seized currency under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-31.1 as proceeds/related property of criminal activity.
- A jury convicted Horning of possession of marijuana and paraphernalia but acquitted him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.
- The district court initially granted the State’s forfeiture motion, then, after Horning’s motion for reconsideration, vacated that order and returned the $16,420 to Horning.
- The State appealed the district court’s order returning the money, asserting the appeal is authorized and the currency was forfeitable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may appeal the district court’s order returning seized property | State: § 29-28-07(5) permits appeal from an order granting return of property; prosecutor’s statement satisfies statutory requirements | Horning: State’s right to appeal is limited; cannot show seized cash was "substantial proof of a fact material" after criminal case concluded | Court: State may appeal; prosecuting attorney’s statement met § 29-28-07(5) requirements |
| Whether acquittal of a criminal charge bars civil forfeiture | State: Forfeiture is separate civil proceeding and not dependent on criminal conviction | Horning: District court treated acquittal as relevant and relied on it to return funds | Court: Acquittal is irrelevant to forfeiture; forfeiture burden remains unchanged despite acquittal |
| Whether the State established probable connection between currency and criminal activity | State: Cash was over $10,000, concealed, found near controlled substances, and thus presumed drug proceeds; initial finding supported forfeiture | Horning: He (and his family) claimed ownership; evidence showed money was found on his person and in his vehicle but ownership disputed | Court: State met initial probable-connection showing; but district court’s ultimate rationale for returning funds was unclear and possibly relied improperly on acquittal; remanded for clear findings |
| Whether the district court’s factual finding that money belonged to Horning was clearly erroneous | State: Contradictory statements by Horning at the stop undermined his ownership claim | Horning: Evidence (cash on person, cash in cooler with his phone and car title, children’s statements) supports ownership | Court: District court had evidence supporting Horning’s ownership finding; that factual determination was not clearly erroneous, but the court must clarify its legal basis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bergstrom, 710 N.W.2d 407 (N.D. 2006) (forfeiture is a civil proceeding separate from criminal prosecution; acquittal irrelevant)
- State v. Koble, 606 N.W.2d 521 (N.D. 2000) (§ 29-31.1-09 allows forfeiture by motion after criminal prosecution commenced)
- State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Pickup, 523 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 1994) (initial burden: show property probably connected with criminal activity)
- State v. $44,140.00 U.S. Currency, 820 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 2012) (district court credibility/weight of evidence review in forfeiture cases)
- Brooks v. Brooks, 864 N.W.2d 767 (N.D. 2015) (trial court must make specific findings of fact and law to allow meaningful appellate review)
- United States v. One Parcel Property Located at 427 and 429 Hall Street, 74 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 1996) (acquittal or non-prosecution is irrelevant to civil forfeiture)