Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Defendants to civil forfeiture actions have a constitutional right to trial by jury in Indiana, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
Justice Christopher Goff wrote the unanimous opinion Tuesday in State of Indiana v. $2,435 in United States Currency and Alucious Q. Kizer, 23S-CR-72.
The defendant, Alucious Kizer, was running from police when he discarded a “veritable pharmacy of controlled substances,” including methamphetamine, fentanyl, cocaine, crack cocaine and synthetic cannabis. Officers also later recovered $2,435 in cash, which became subject to a civil forfeiture complaint.
Kizer requested a jury trial on the forfeiture issue, but the state moved to strike, claiming neither the state nor federal constitutions provide a right to trial in forfeiture cases.
The Allen Circuit Court initially granted the state’s motion but then vacated its order, noting guidance that trial courts should err “on the side of awarding Defendants more rights and due process by honoring the right to jury trial in civil forfeiture cases, if timely requested.”
The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed on interlocutory appeal, concluding “a complaint by the State for the forfeiture of illegal property is ‘not a civil case under the common law when the Constitution was adopted … .’”
But on transfer to the Supreme Court, the justices affirmed the trial court, finding the jury trial right applies to an action to confiscate money under the state’s civil forfeiture statute.
Focusing on Article 1, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution — which guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases — the justices adapted a formula put forward by retired Justice Theodore Boehm in Midwest Security Life Insurance Co. v. Stroup, 730 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. 2000): “Parties in a civil case have a right to trial by jury in a cause of action (1) that was triable by the jury at the adoption of the current constitution in 1851; or (2) if no such cause existed at the time, one that is essentially legal, rather than equitable, as those terms were understood in 1851, considering ‘the complaint, the rights and interests involved, and the relief demanded.’”
Applying that framework, the justices concluded Article 1, Section 20 does protect the right to a jury trial for in rem civil forfeitures.
“… (T)he historical record — consisting of statutes and judicial decisions reflecting contemporary practice — strongly suggests that Indiana continued the common-law tradition of trial by jury in actions for the forfeiture of property,” Goff wrote.
However, “While the historical record strongly suggests that Indiana continued the common-law tradition of jury trials for in rem forfeitures, we acknowledged that the evidence is largely circumstantial,” he continued.
“But, even if no cause of action existed in 1851,” Goff wrote, “we have little trouble concluding that the forfeiture here is not, as the State contends, akin to the equitable disgorgement of illegally obtained profits.” That’s because of who gets the proceeds of forfeited money, the in rem theory of civil forfeiture, and the “general rule” that “a court of equity will not interfere to give relief against a statutory forfeiture.”
“… In sum, we conclude that the present action for in rem forfeiture of money as the instrument and proceeds of crime is readily analogous to the traditional common-law forfeiture of property used in violation of the law — not to equitable disgorgement,” the court concluded. “And, in keeping with Indiana’s constitutional guarantee, this is an essentially legal action that triggers the right to trial by jury.”
The case was remanded for a jury trial on the forfeiture action against Kizer.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.