Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The state’s highest court stayed late Monday, as the Indiana Supreme Court hosted its first ever Night Court for Legislators.
The high court’s courtroom on the third floor of the Statehouse, just down the hall from the legislators’ chambers, was filled with state senators and representatives.
Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, gave background on the case–Angela Y. Smith, Dylan Williams, and $11,180 in United States Currency v. State of Indiana, 23S-MI-345—before the justices entered the courtroom.
House Speaker Todd Huston, R-Fishers, served as honorary bailiff and gaveled the court into session.
“I’ve heard you all have had a busy day today because we could hear you out there,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush said. “But I am excited along with my colleagues that you’re here to see some of the work we do.”
Indianapolis attorney Stephen Gray represented Smith in front of the high court.
Smith claimed that the $11,180 that the state seized in a parole-related search of Dylan Williams’s apartment was hers.
She stated that she had given the money to her nephew to hold on to.
The Marion Superior Court found the currency was subject to forfeiture, but did not state whether the money belonged to Smith.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court’s ruling and rejected Smith’s argument that the state did not prove a connection between the money and criminal activity.
Gray argued that the order should be reversed because a nexus was never established between the money and criminal activity.
“Unless the trial court can find the standard in the statute has been met, I don’t believe the court has the authority to forfeit the money,” Gray said.
Gray further stated that there was no evidence of the identity, the weight of the drugs or how they were found.
Williams pleaded guilty to a Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug less than five grams. There was a scale found on a visitor.
Justice Mark Massa asked if the case would be different if Williams had been facing a dealing offense.
Gray said there was no evidence of dealing.
Rush clarified that Gray was arguing the state failed to meet its burden. She then asked why the probable cause affidavit wasn’t used, to which Gray said it wasn’t submitted as evidence.
Gray said there was no evidence that Williams was using the money for buying drugs or other criminal activity.
Rush noted that Smith had given Williams $15,000, but only $11,000 was found.
Justice Christopher Goff asked Gray if they were to find the state failed to meet its burden, do they give the money to Smith or do they leave that to the trial court.
Gray said that Smith was the person to claim the money and noted that Williams was never called to testify in the case.
Justice Derek Molter asked why Gray hadn’t called Williams to testify.
Gray stated that he thought Smith’s testimony was enough.
“The state would have called him as a witness and they chose not to serve him with a subpoena to appear in court,” Gray said. “It was their burden, not mine.”
Gray stated that standing was put at issue on appeal and not at the trial court.
“Sounds to me you put standing at issue,” Justice Geoffery Slaughter said.
Slaughter noted that the appellate court brought up standing in its memorandum opinion.
Massa asked if the court ever made a finding that linked the money to narcotics trafficking.
“Well, it did say that they met their burden of proof by preponderance of evidence, I’m assuming that the burden of proof is related to the statute,” Gray said.
Slaughter seemed to disagree.
“You may be giving the trial judge more credit than due,” Slaughter said. “He made no finding against your client as far as I can tell.”
Rush noted that she looked at six different state laws that define ownership, unlike Indiana.
“What do we make of the fact that the legislature didn’t define owner in the statutes?” Rush asked.
Gray said that it is up to the courts, if they didn’t define it, but that his client’s testimony and evidence proved that Smith had standing.
Deputy Attorney General Justin Roebel then argued on the behalf of the state.
He said that the high court should affirm the trial court’s decision because Smith didn’t have standing.
Rush asked about other forfeiture scenarios like someone borrowing a car, bike or mobile home. She also noted that Smith showed her bank statements that affirmed the withdrawal of the money.
“Other than getting the serial numbers from the bank, how else could she show she was an owner?” Rush asked.
Roebel said that she had to prove that it was the exact same money, not just that she was a creditor to her nephew.
Rush then questioned if it was Smith’s burden or the state’s.
Roebel acknowledged that the state does have the burden to prove the money is subject to forfeiture, but that Smith had the burden in her claim that she was the owner.
“Which burden comes first?” Slaughter asked.
Roebel said that the statute does not say which is first.
Massa noted that the state can only keep the currency if it can establish the nexus.
“Didn’t you fail to do that in this case?” Massa asked.
Roebel agreed that the state can only keep the money if a nexus has been established, but he stressed that the state didn’t believe it failed to do so.
The state argued that it didn’t call Williams to testify on the money because it wouldn’t have helped their case.
On rebuttal, Gray stated that should the court find the money should be returned, then it should go to Smith because she put the claim in for it.
Bray adjourned the court with the gavel.
“It’s a great opportunity for members of the General Assembly to listen to arguments on the statute that we crafted and helps us maybe think a little bit more deeply into the words that in the language we use, like for instance, does owner need to be defined, that sort of thing,” Bray said.
Huston agreed and added that it was a good experience and that it was good for their members to see.
“Great opportunity to see the court in action and just something I think was great for all of our members to see,” Huston said.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.