Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA jury trial was not required for an Allen County man’s civil forfeiture case, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has concluded in a reversal.
Alucious Kizer was pulled over by police for a traffic stop in September 2021, but Kizer fled from the vehicle. In the process, Kizer allegedly attempted to dispose of more than 74 grams of methamphetamine, 67 grams of fentanyl, 12 grams of powder cocaine, 10 grams of crack cocaine and 10 grams of a synthetic cannabinoid.
Once Kizer was apprehended, officers seized $1,410 from his person and another $1,025 from his car. A complaint was subsequently filed in the Allen Circuit Court for the forfeiture of the $2,435 seized from Kizer and his vehicle. In his answer, Kizer denied the allegations and requested a jury trial on the forfeiture complaint.
Although it initially struck Kizer’s demand for a jury trial, in January 2022, the trial court reconsidered its order, vacated it, and, citing Article 1, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution, set the matter for a jury trial. It then stayed the proceedings and certified its January order for interlocutory appeal.
In a Monday reversal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred when it concluded that Article 1, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution requires a jury trial on the state’s in rem forfeiture complaint.
“The Indiana Supreme Court has long held that 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 . . . and so it has been uniformly held in this state that… [the] parties are not entitled to trial by jury as a constitutional right.’ We have similarly recognized that, ‘[b]y denying individuals the ability to profit from ill-gotten gain, an action for forfeiture resembles an equitable action for disgourgement or restitution,’” Judge Paul Mathias wrote.
“It is well-settled that the State’s civil forfeiture complaints are outside of Article 1, Section 20, and are instead equitable claims to be tried by the court,” the appellate court concluded. “We therefore reverse the trial court’s order setting the State’s complaint here for a jury trial and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.”
The case is State of Indiana v. $2,435 in United States Currency and Alucious Kizer, 22A-CR-578.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.