State v. $18,000

311 Neb. 621 (2022) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · May 20, 2022 · No. S-21-660

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the forfeiture of $18,000 seized from Christopher Bouldin during a traffic stop. The court held that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431, as amended in 2016, requires the State to establish the statutory basis for forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. The court declined to consider Bouldin’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument because it was inadequately briefed.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Papik, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Funke, J.; Freudenberg, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
May 20, 2022
Docket number
S-21-660
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment of the Seward County District Court in a civil forfeiture proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431. The district court ordered $18,000 in cash forfeited to the State after finding by clear and convincing evidence that the money was used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
Standard of review
Statutory interpretation is reviewed independently as a question of law. An appellate court will not address an assignment of error that is not specifically argued in the appellant's brief.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Christopher Bouldin, Interested Party v. State of Nebraska, Eighteen Thousand Dollars in U.S. Currency ($18,000.00)
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

forfeiturestatutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of reviewcriminal procedure

Practice areas

civil forfeitureappellate procedurestatutory interpretationcriminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court applied the correct burden of proof under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431 in ordering the seized cash forfeited.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support forfeiture of the $18,000.

Holdings

  1. Under the version of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431 applicable after the 2016 amendment, the State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that property was used in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act for forfeiture purposes; the statute no longer requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. The court will not address an assignment of error when the appellant's brief does little more than restate the assignment and fails to provide a specific argument explaining the alleged error.

Key quotations

Because this case does not require us to determine whether forfeiture proceedings under the statute remain criminal in nature after the 2016 amendments to § 28-431, we leave that question for another day. (625)
An argument that does little more than to restate an assignment of error does not support the assignment, and an appellate court will not address it. (626)

Factual background

During a traffic stop on Interstate 80 in Seward County, Nebraska, a law enforcement officer searched a vehicle driven by Christopher Bouldin and seized $18,000 in cash. The officer testified that Bouldin was traveling from Virginia to Colorado, a certified drug dog indicated the presence of narcotics, and Bouldin's phones contained marijuana-related photographs, videos, and text messages concerning purported purchases of marijuana and THC wax. The State also introduced evidence of Bouldin's prior Utah conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

Procedural history

The State petitioned for forfeiture of $18,000 seized from Bouldin during a traffic stop. Bouldin filed a claim seeking return of the money but did not appear for trial. After hearing testimony from the seizing officer and receiving other evidence, the district court ordered forfeiture and distribution of the cash. Bouldin timely appealed, challenging the burden of proof and the sufficiency of the evidence; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…