cdTOCtest

(coco) #1

court had less harsh sanctions available to ensure that the
claimant did not use liberal civil discovery rules to gain an
advantage in the criminal case where discovery is more
limited.


B. Sufficiency of Evidence


In State v. $36,560.00 in U.S. Currency, 289 N.J.
Super. 237 (App. Div. 1996), certif. denied, 147 N.J. 97
(1997), following a bench trial, the court found that the
evidence did not support a conclusion that the currency
was derived from or was an integral part of illegal
marijuana distribution. The Appellate Division
reversed, noting “a wealth” of circumstances establishing
that the cash was derivative contraband, circumstances
including: the cash was found in a locked strongbox
directly underneath a one-pound bag of marijuana; the
strongbox was in a drawer of a filing cabinet in the master
bedroom where marijuana transactions were conducted
with an undercover buyer; a triple-beam balance and
other drug paraphernalia, along with an additional one-
half pound of marijuana were discovered in the bedroom;
and the cash was divided and placed in envelopes marked
with money amounts, one of which contained a fifty-
dollar bill used in a controlled undercover marijuana
purchase. Id. at 254-258.


C. Preclusion


Because forfeiture is a civil proceeding, the burden of
proof is a preponderance of evidence. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-13f.
See also State v. Rodriguez 130 N.J. Super. 57 (App. Div.
1974). Consequently, an acquittal or dismissal of the
criminal charges will not preclude forfeiture. N.J.S.A.
2C:64-4b.


D. Allocation


The trial court should make a specific finding
whether all or part of cash recovered from a vehicle
transporting narcotics was to be used for drug purchases,
and only that portion of the cash intended for drug
purchases may be forfeited. The defendant bears the
burden of proving allocation after the State has made a
prima facie showing of substantial drug involvement.
State v. One 1978 Ford Van et. al., 218 N.J. Super. 374
(App. Div. 1987).


E. Disposal of Forfeited Property


Property which has been forfeited shall be destroyed
if it can serve no lawful purpose or if it is dangerous, with
the exception that weapons with military value may be


donated to the National Guard Militia Museum,
N.J.S.A. 2C:64-6. All other forfeited property, proceeds
from the sale of forfeited property, or proceeds of illegal
activity becomes the property of the entity funding the
prosecuting agency. N.J.S.A. 2C:64-6.

F. Post-Judgment Forfeiture Administration

Matters of sharing, accounting, and the use and
expenditure of forfeited property originally were
addressed in the Administrative Code. See N.J.S.A.
2C:64-6; see also (former) N.J.A.C. 13:77-1.1 et seq.
Administrative matters now are addressed in the
Attorney General’s Standard Operating Procedures for
Forfeiture Program Administration.

G. Recovery of Seized Property

N.J.S.A. 2C:64-8 imposes a three-year limitation on
persons seeking to recover seized property. Dragutsky v.
Tate, 262 N.J. Super. 257 (App. Div. 1993). The State,
however, can not prevail against even a belated claim of an
innocent owner who was unaware of the seizure, unless
the State has commenced or can commence a forfeiture
action that was or can be pursued to judgment. Id. To
avoid a “standoff as to the appropriate disposition of
seized property,” the State should, if nothing else, be able
to avail itself of escheat provisions in N.J.S.A. 46:30B-1
et seq., where forfeiture is not possible and no claim is
made. See Dragutsky v. Tate, 262 N.J. Super. at 264.

H. Son of Sam Law, N.J.S.A. 52:4B-26 et seq.

Author and publisher of biography of convicted
murdered were not “agents” of that murdered within the
meaning of the “Son of Sam Law,” N.J.S.A. 52-4B-26 et
seq. intended to prevent perpetrators of sensational
crimes benefitting from their acts, and it was error to
place proceeds received from sale of that biography into
interest-bearing account for ultimate benefit of victims
survivors. Fasching v. Kallinger, 211 N.J. Super 26 (App.
Div. 1986), after remand 227 N.J. Super. 270 (App. Div.
1988). See, Romaine v. Kallinger 109 N.J. 282 (1988).
Free download pdf