State v. Horning
2016 ND 151
| N.D. | 2016Background
- Law enforcement seized $16,420 in cash during a traffic stop of Karl Horning; police also found marijuana, paraphernalia, and methamphetamine paraphernalia.
- The State moved to forfeit the currency under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-31.1 (property held as evidence) and relied on the presumption in N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23.3 that large amounts of currency transported in an unusual manner are connected to drug offenses.
- At trial Horning was convicted of a misdemeanor possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana and related paraphernalia offenses, but acquitted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver.
- The district court initially ordered forfeiture, then vacated and denied forfeiture after reconsideration, citing Horning’s acquittal and lack of evidence of trafficking; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for clarification because the prior denial relied on the criminal verdict.
- On remand the district court signed an order denying forfeiture based on three findings: (1) insufficient proof the money was drug proceeds, (2) the § 19-03.1-23.3 presumption was inapplicable to a ch. 29-31.1 forfeiture, and (3) no evidence of trafficking.
- The Supreme Court reversed again, holding the district court misapplied the law and that the record supported the State’s showing that the currency was probably connected with criminal activity and triggered the statutory presumption; Horning did not rebut the presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forfeiture may proceed despite acquittal on related criminal charges | State: forfeiture is civil and independent of criminal verdicts; acquittal irrelevant | Horning: criminal acquittal undermines connection between cash and drug trafficking | Held: Forfeiture is separate from criminal conviction; acquittal is not determinative and may not bar forfeiture |
| Whether the State proved the currency was "probably connected with criminal activity" | State: evidence met the threshold — >$10,000, transported on highway, concealed in a cooler, found near drugs/paraphernalia | Horning: State’s evidence is conjecture; no proof of trafficking or proceeds from drug sales | Held: Record supports that the currency was probably connected with criminal activity; State met its initial burden |
| Applicability of statutory presumption in § 19-03.1-23.3 to ch. 29-31.1 forfeiture | State: presumption applies and helps establish a substantial connection when statutory criteria are met | Horning: presumption in ch. 19-03.1 does not apply to forfeiture proceedings under ch. 29-31.1 | Held: The presumption applies to support a probable connection; district court erred in concluding it was inapplicable |
| Adequacy of district court’s factual findings on remand | State: remand order lacked legal and evidentiary support and misapplied law | Horning: remand order correctly found insufficiency and lack of trafficking evidence | Held: District court’s findings reflected an erroneous legal view and were unsupported by the evidence; reversal and remand to enter order granting forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bergstrom, 710 N.W.2d 407 (N.D. 2006) (standard for forfeiture findings and two-stage forfeiture burden)
- State v. Koble, 606 N.W.2d 521 (N.D. 2000) (forfeiture by motion after criminal prosecution commences under ch. 29-31.1)
- One 1990 Chevrolet Pickup v. State, 523 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 1994) (civil forfeiture not dependent on criminal conviction)
- United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at 427 & 429 Hall St., 74 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 1996) (acquittal or nonprosecution is irrelevant to civil forfeiture)
- State v. Horning, 873 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 2016) (prior appeal reversing district court for reliance on criminal acquittal and remanding for explanation)