*1
Decided *2 Peter T. Campana, Williamsport, McGlaughlin, David M. Assoc, amicus, Philadelphia, for Pa. of Crim. Defense Law- yers. B. Sacavage, Atty., Ciarrocchi,
Robert Dist. L. Guy Depu- Gen., ty Atty. Mary Benefield Seiverling, Harrisburg, for amicus, Atty. Gen. Eisenberg, Leone,
Ronald Dist. Deputy Atty., George S. Philadelphia, amicus, for Pa. D.A. Assoc. NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY,
Before McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY, JJ. THE
OPINION OF COURT FLAHERTY, Justice.
The issue raised this case is by whether the owner of property subject to forfeiture under the Controlled Sub stances Forfeitures Act1 is entitled to a jury pursuant Act, 1. Section 6802 of the Controlled Substances Forfeitures concern- forfeiture, ing procedure respect property subject with to Pa.C.S. 6802, provides, pertinent part: § (a) procedure. proceedings General The for forfeiture or con- property, provided demnation of the sale of which is for in this rem, chapter, shall be in in which the Commonwealth shall be the plaintiff property petition and the the defendant. A shall be filed in pleas judicial proper- the court of common of the district where the located, citizen, ty containing is verified oath or affirmation of an officer or following: (1) description property A seized. (2) place A statement of the time and where seized. owner, (3) The if known. (4) (5) person persons possession, The if known. allegation property subject pursu- An that the to forfeiture 6801(a) (relating property rights ant to section monwealth) to loss of to Com- upon and an averment material facts which the forfeiture action is based. (6) prayer property A for an order of forfeiture that the adjudged forfeited to the Commonwealth and condemned and be For the Constitution.2 Pennsylvania Article 6 of the § required follow, trials are jury hold that reasons we brought in forfeiture demanded claimants when Act. Forfeitures Substances pursuant Controlled Z-28 is a 1984 Camaro in this case at issue using proceeds automobile, purchased allegedly which was used allegedly and which was illegal drugs sale of from the Common- drugs. January On illegal to store condemnation filed a petition wealth County of Northumberland Pleas the Court of Common to the pursuant of the 1984 Camaro seeking forfeiture Stucks, appel- Act. The Forfeiture Substances Controlled and demanded to the vehicle herein, then filed a claim lants for a request granted The trial court trial. motion trial, the Commonwealth’s subsequently granted but the con- according cause be shown to unless ordered sold *3 trary. under the rules (h) (1) may and a time shall be Commonwealth was under section setting be reasonable under possessed by show: (j) event that it shall of a (f) shall show that the knowledge (1) (2) (3) Owner’s burden Hearing or Hearing regarding property; unlawfully receive and chattel That the claimant That the That it was not (g), forth a or evidence and time set. mortgage a consent. Such absence right 6801(a), claimant person used, produces of evidence. consider, appear [******] fixed for the unlawful use or the circumstances unlawfully possessed possession, the case shall be deemed or contract Upon other than the proof. is the owner of the lawfully that the information that would at a evidence that burden shall be hearing At or otherwise used or filing acquired hearing. of conditional rules the time of the claimant, possession of a claim held knowledge presented. possessed of evidence. The was pursuant property upon property subject property. unlawfully then the was sale thereon. for the be inadmissible the claimant or by hearing, if or the to subsection consent must to forfeiture him. In the without his claimant property question used or at issue holder court 1, provides: Pennsylvania of the Constitution 2. Article 6§ Jury by Trial right and the by jury be as heretofore Trial shall Section 6. Assembly may provide, General inviolate. The thereof remain however, by may not less than be rendered by that a verdict any jury in civil case. five-sixths for certification of the case as appropriate for interlocutory appeal on the question of whether a jury required. Commonwealth granted Court petition Commonwealth’s permission to appeal, and after argument reversed the trial court’s order requiring jury trial. The Stucks peti- tioned for allowance of appeal and this granted allocatur.
Commonwealth Court held that the right to a jury trial a controlled substance forfeiture proceeding required not by statute, is not suggested legislative history by legislative treatment acts, of other forfeiture and is not expressly guaranteed by the constitution or based in com- concluded, mon law. It therefore, that there is right no to a jury trial this case.
Commonwealth Court observed that this court has inter-
preted Pennsylvania’s constitutional requirement
that “trial
shall
heretofore,
be as
right
and the
thereof remain
inviolate,”
1,
6, Pa.Const.,
Art.
to mean that
jury trial
§
rights existing when the constitution was adopted were
preserved, Byers
Commonwealth,
(1862),
527 if forfeiture trial. be true even jury ment of a This would 1790, ac- statutory for juries tried before actions were law, common law only of part tions are the common 1, Article 6 implicated by involving jury trials are § v. Cartex Murphy See of Pennsylvania the Constitution. Corp.: Con- that long recognized Pennsylvania has been the
[I]t
1,
right
trial
‘only preserves
stitution [Article
§ 6]
it existed at the time the
those cases where
jury
by
Pub-
v. Pa.
W.J. Dillner Co.
was
adopted.’
Constitution
136, 149, 155
Comm.,
Pa.Superior
191
Ct.
lic Utilities
429,
(1959).
trials are not available in
Jury
A.2d
435
unless
has
proceeding
statute
proceedings
created
expressly
law
unless the statute
a common
basis or
Watson, 377
See,
appeal
Pa.
provides.
so
impliedly
495,
(1954).
377
statute, a
argue
that
created
proceedings
Stucks
has a common
proceeding
is
trial
available when
jury
Watson,
Pa.
A.2d 576
Appeal
basis,
105
law
com-
in rem
existed at
(1954);
proceedings
that
forfeiture
was entitled
a
and that the owner
mon
United
v. One 1976
States
proceedings,
trial
these
jury
S,
(7th Cir.1980);
Benz 280
F.2d 453
and that
Mercedes
drugs
on
should not be
of the current war
exigencies
rights.
deny
constitutional
utilized
is no statu-
that there
agree with
Commonwealth
We
question,
in this case. The
a
requirement
tory
in forfei-
required
trials were
then,
whether jury
becomes
so,
if
there
whether
proceedings
ture
proceeding.
basis for the
common law
required
trials were
question,
to the first
whether
As
that
1790, our research indicates
actions in
citizen, should be forfeited to the United States after the recaptured American army government’s The Philadelphia. theory was that salt property (the the was the of an enemy original owner) and not an American because contract provided sale paid that the salt after only the American army Philadelphia, arrived and then only on the condition that the salt was not destroyed. meant, This according to government, that salt was still the of a property British national when troops American arrived was, therefore, and that it forfeit. The Court of the case Pennsylvania tried to a which jury, held for the owner of the We salt. conclude from this a property owner was to a jury entitled trial in forfeiture actions in 1790, at least as to seized on goods land4 where there is an issue as to goods whether seized are contraband.5
The
question
next
whether the forfeiture action in
this case has a common law basis.
term
The
“common law
not,
case,
does
basis”
the context of this
mean that the
action originated
common
prior
1790,
at
for even
origin. See,
statutory
e.g.,
were
The
1789, 1
Rather,
Act of
Judiciary
Stat. 73.
“common law
refers to the nature of
proceeding
basis”
common law
courts such as
Court of Exchequer,
but not courts of
Stone,
Moore,
133, 137,
Hendry
4. Mr. Justice
U.S.
318
63 S.Ct.
663,
501-02,
(1943),
666
L.Ed.
wrote:
offending object,
Forfeiture to the Crown
because it had been
law, by
procedure
practice
used in violation
rem
was a
only
English admiralty
familiar not
to the
courts but to the Court of
Exchequer.
exchequer gave
remedy
such a
for the forfeiture of
And, concurrently
articles seized on land for the violation of law.
admiralty,
proceedings
with the
it entertained true
in rem for the
navigable
forfeiture of
for violation
vessels
on
waters.
Pennsylvania
5. We note that
a difference
there is
law as to the
se,
property
is,'per
illegal
possess,
treatment of
which
not,
itself,
See,
illegal
possess.
e.g., Pennsylvania
which is
allowing
liquor
appropriate
statutes
which
bear
seized
does not
stamp
proceeding
jury.
tax
to be
in an in
forfeited
rem
without a
See
408, 412-13;
Large
Act of December
3 Pa.
at
Statutes
Act of
26, 1744,
395, 402-03;
May
Large
September
at
Pa. Statutes
Act of
21, 1756,
243, 252, 258;
12, 1772,
Large
5 Pa.
at
Statutes
Act March
Large
8 Pa. Statutes at
218-19.
*6
Long
the American Revo-
Chancery.6
before
Admiralty
courts,
forfei-
lution,
example,
for
heard
English Admiralty
courts
where common law
jury,
ture cases without a
but
forfeiture
(Courts
had
to hear
Exchequer)
jurisdiction
of
land,
cases,
in
forfeitures on
where there
involving
as
cases
contraband,
goods
the seized
are
is an issue as to whether
heard
were, according to common law tradition
the cases
Co. v.
Hendry
See C.J.
sitting
jury.
court
with a
the
(1943).7
Moore, 318 U.S.
499,
* ¤ ¤ *** Separate courts the exercising jurisdiction of the Court Exchequer of were never established in the American jurisdiction Instead, that was absorbed Colonies. the common law courts which entertained suits the for English under local or statutes forfeiture of authorizing Long adop- its condemnation. the before tion the Constitution the common law courts in the of during period in Colonies—and later the states the of exercising jurisdiction in in rem Confederation—were the statutes. Like the Exche- enforcement offorfeiture quer, cases of seizure on navigable they waters exer- a jurisdiction cised concurrently with the courts of admi- But the ralty. courts in vice-admiralty the Colonies did begin to function with real any continuity until about afterward____ By juris- time, the 1700 or shortly ships diction common law courts to condemn and of cargoes Navigation violation Acts had been for of firmly apparently question, established, without regularly throughout exercised the colonies. In general brought against the suits were or vessel by jury, condemned, article were tried closely the procedure followed if Exchequer, and successful with condemnation forfeiture or of judgments resulted for sale. provision a admiralty or said that has never held
The Court
exclusive, and it has
forfeiture case
a
jurisdiction
that,
forfeiture of articles
in cases of
declared
repeatedly
statutes,
dis-
of federal
on land for violation
seized
according
common law
as courts
proceed
courts
trict
of
in rem
on
Exchequer
the course
informations
of
...
Justice
by jury.
with trial
omitted.]
[Citations
information in
a
such an action as
libel
defined
Story
court. And see Chief
side of the
Exchequer
rem on the
reference,
v. United
Hoppet
Marshall’s
Justice
(U.S.) 389, 393, 3 L.Ed.
States, 7 Cranch
against the
common
either
in courts of
“proceedings
or forfeitures.”
In all
thing,
penalties
or the
person
understanding
judges,
common
perceive
we
this
of
writers,
both
and text
lawyers
after
before
Constitution,
law na-
the common
adoption
in rem in
judgment
procedure
ture
forfei-
in the
proceedings
in such
cases and
its use
ture
law courts.
in the American common
exchequer and
501-03,
the jurisdiction Exchequer, of later, Court and Ameri- can common law courts.
Relying part on Hendry, the United States of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has arrived at a similar conclusion: English practice prior
both and American to 1791 definite- ly recognized of in jury trial rem actions at common law as the established mode of determining the of propriety statutory on forfeitures land for breach statutory prohibitions. S,
United States v. 1976 Benz One Mercedes 280 618 F.2d (7th Cir.1980).9 466 The also court noted “the time- trial, honored tradition of American commitment to jury extending back to Congress (and the Continental as was believed, then to the legale judicium parium Magna Carta.),” and Blackstone’s view English that the dedication to by jury trial more pronounced was even in the new world than in the old. Id. at 468. reasons,
For the foregoing we hold that the Stucks are to a jury pursuant entitled trial Article § In Pennsylvania Constitution. rem forfeiture in- actions volving questions of goods whether the seized are contra- band heard in were common law courts before juries this right trial preserved by Penn- sylvania Constitution.
Reversed remanded for jury trial. McDERMOTT, J., files a concurring opinion. Justice, McDERMOTT, concurring. majority’s
The this analysis historical case is doubtful First, Court, on this grounds. two in a case relatively dissenting judge Even the United One States v. 1976 Mercedes Benz " agreed majority’s 280 S that the English conclusion ‘that both prior definitely recognized Practice American determining rem at as common law the established mode of propriety statutory statutory forfeitures on land breach of ” prohibitions’ undoubtedly "is correct.” F.2d at 470. dissen- quarrel ter’s was with the manner in which the conclusion was applied facts of that case.
533
trial is not
in all
required
vintage,
jury
held that a
recent
Bowers, Commonwealth
See
proceedings.
forfeiture
(1931).
The Court Bowers addressing in is analo- in distribution. The case illegal ture used alcohol in the statute there was also to the case at bar that gous of non-contraband items based directed towards the seizure itself. Un- relationship on their to the contraband alleged trial was jury statute no der the then extant ruled addressing question prescribed. The Court thusly: there is a
“A
trial can
be demanded where
jury
only
The court is required
disputed question
of fact.
dispute
there is no
jury
award a
cases where
obliged
against
and it would
to decide the case
fact
be
claimant,
law, on his petition.”
as a matter of
Id.,
added). Thus,
(emphasis
Second, leap has taken a romantic from the majority (1782), Henry, case of Wilcox v. 1 Dall. L.Ed. there, trial was held that a arguing that because required trial was so held. The cites majority fact *10 no historical evidence in support of this conclusion and I am unwilling to accept the majority’s assumption that merely because a trial was once held it must follow that a jury- trial was mandated all forfeiture proceedings.
If the majority confined their ruling to those cases where third persons claimed a lack of knowledge that property owned by them was illegally used one convicted while using thing I place, would agree. Likewise, I would agree when the prosecution pursue seeks to property be- yond those instruments actually used to facilitate the crime upon which conviction was founded: for it does not always follow that all that one owns has been obtained illegal activity, and such facts not in evidence in the crimi- nal trial are not therefore Thus, resolved.
would appropriate.
I note that in this case the appellants were not previously Therefore, convicted of a crime. there has prior not been a adjudication of facts. As such I concur the result in the present case to award the appellants a jury trial.
Argued 4,May 1992. Decided June