Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-0214 Miscellaneous COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs OF : v. : CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA : $960.00 IN CASH : : NO. 214 MISCELLANEOus 1993 IN RE: ..... PETIT/ON FOR FORFEITURE AND NOW, this I~ day of November, 1994, Upon Consideration of the C°mmonwealth,s Petition for Forfeiture, following a nonjury trial and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, the Petition is GRANTED and the sum of $960.00 is hereby FORFEITED to the Commonwealth. BY THE COURT, Thomas A. Placey, Esq. ~ Assistant District Attorney Joshua D. Lock, Esq. 106 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant : rc COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA $960.00 IN CASH : NO. 214 MISCELLANEOUS 1993 IN RE: PETITION FOR FORFEITURE BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J. The present forfeiture action arises out of the seizure by police of $960.00 in cash in connection with a search of a residence rented by Claimant Jason M. Snyder. A petition for forfeiture of the cash was filed by the Commonwealth, pursuant to Section 6802 of the Judicial Code.~ A nonjury trial on the matter was held on Thursday, October 27, 1994. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the petition for forfeiture will be granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Claimant is Jason M. Snyder, an adult individual residing at 659 St. John's Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. On Thursday, September 2, 1993, Claimant was residing at a house leased to him by Charles E. Sampson at 706 State Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. On that date Claimant was arrested at his residence on certain charges and gave consent to police to search the premises. 4. According to the testimony of Officer James E. Heck of the ~ Act of June 30, 1988, P.L. 464, ~4, 42 Pa. C.S. ~6802 (1994 Supp.). NO. 214 MISCELLANEOUS 1993 Lemoyne Borough Police Department, which the Court accepts as true, the result of the search was as follows: [D]uring the search, we had found a plastic bong in the living room area; rolling papers in the living room area; a marijuana pipe, metal, underneath the sofa; a pipe with marijuana seeds and stems, powder, in the basement. I found $960.00 in a mug, along with a packet of green vegetable material. This was in the living room underneath a shelf for a fish tank. A glass pipe with residue in the desk drawer in the kitchen. A set of wooden scales and a wooden box in the kitchen counter drawer. A wooden marijuana pipe in the top dresser, middle bedroom, second floor. A glassine baggy with suspected marijuana, bottom dresser drawer, north bedroom, second floor. And a white box with suspected marijuana underneath the bed in the north bedroom on the second floor.2 5. The denominations comprising the $960.00 in cash were as follows: three $100 bills, two $50 bills, and twenty-eight $20 bills. 6. The "green vegetable material" in the mug with the cash was parsley, laced with .17 grams of phencyclidine (PCP), a Schedule II Controlled Substance. 7. A State Police laboratory analysis of several of the other items referred to in Officer Heck's testimony revealed quantities of marijuana in the amounts of 3.4 grams, 53.4 grams and 1.3 grams. 8. According to the testimony of Officer Heck, which the Court accepts as true, Claimant advised him that the drug-related 2 N.T. 2, Partial Transcript of Proceedings, Trial on Petition for Forfeiture, October 27, 1994. 2 NO. 214 MISCELLANEOUS 1993 items seized were all his and that another individual on the premises, Matthew E. Lesny, was simply "crashing" there temporarily. 9. As a result of the search, Claimant was charged with the offenses of possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance, unlawful possession of a small amount of marijuana, unlawful delivery, manufacture, or possession with intent to deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, and unlawful delivery, manufacture, or possession with intent to deliver a Schedule I controlled substance. 10. On Tuesday, August 30, 1994, Claimant pled guilty before the Honorable Harold E. Sheely, to possession of drug paraphernalia, unlawful possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, and unlawful possession of a small amount of marijuana. On Tuesday, October 4, 1994, Claimant was sentenced by President Judge Sheely to pay a fine of $25.00 and to undergo imprisonment in the Cumberland County Prison for a period of not less than fifteen days nor more than 23 months. He was paroled on Tuesday, October 18, 1994. 11. The $960.00 in cash found in the mug with the PCP-laced parsley is the subject of the present forfeiture proceeding. 12. Claimant testified that none of the said cash was drug- related. He testified that the money was to be deposited in his bank account for the purpose of paying the rent for the months of 3 NO. 214 MISCELLANEOUS 1993 September and August, 1994, in a lump sum of $950.00. He testified that between $400.00 and $450.00 of the cash had been provided by Matthew E. Lesny as a contribution to rent. Finally, he testified that the money was in the mug so that he would not forget to take it to the bank when he left the residence. 13. By stipulation of counsel, it was agreed that, Matthew E. Lesny, if called to testify, would have testified in accordance with the following letter: This letter is in regards to the $960 confiscated from Matthew Lesny and Jason Snyder on September 3, 1993. This money was to be used to pay our rent for the months of September and October 1993. Of that money, $400 was contributed by me. 14. The Court, after careful consideration of all of the evidence, finds it more likely than not that the aforesaid sum of $960.00 in cash was money furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. DISCUSSION Statement of Law. Under Section 6801 of the Judicial Code, the following item is subject to forfeiture to the Commonwealth, inter alia: Money ... furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act .... 3 Act of June 30, 1988, P.L. 464, ~4, 42 Pa. C.S. ~6801(a)(6)(i)(A) (1994 Supp.). 4 NO. 214 MISCELLANEOUS 1993 In a forfeiture proceeding under this statute, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving "the material allegations by a preponderance of the evidence .... .. Commonwealth v. Tate, 371 Pa. Super. 611, 615, 538 A.2d 903, 905 (1988). In the case of money, it is provided that [s]uch money ... found in close proximity to controlled substances possessed in violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act shall be rebuttably presumed to be proceeds derived from the selling of a controlled substance in violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.4 "[A] rebuttable presumption is a means by which a rule of substantive law is invoked to force the trier of fact to reach a given conclusion, once the facts constituting its hypothesis have been established..' Commonwealth v. Giffin, 407 Pa. Super. 15, 21, 595 A.2d 101, 104 (1991). "'A rebuttable presumption forces [a party] to come forth or suffer inevitable defeat on the issue in controversy.'" Id. at 22, 595 A.2d at 104, quoting Commonwealth v. Tate, 371 Pa. Super. 611, 617, 538 A.2d 903, 906 (1988). "The specific test used to evaluate the evidence presented at a forfeiture hearing is whether it was 'more likely that not' that the funds were used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substance Act." Commonwealth v. Giffin, 407 Pa. Super. 15, 22, 595 A.2d 101, 104 (1991), quoting 4 Act of June 30, 1988, P.L. 464, S4, 42 Pa. C.S. S6801(a)(6)(ii) (1994 Supp.). 5 NO. 214 MISCELLANEOUS 1993 Commonwealth v. One 1988 Ford Coupe, 393 Pa. Super. 320, 333, 574 A.2d 631, 638 (1990). ADDlication of law to facts. In this action, the statutory presumption applicable to cash found in close proximity to controlled substances possessed in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, the substantial evidence of drug involvement on the part of Claimant, the significant amount of cash at issue, the absence of any denominations associated with more mundane commerce, and the inability of the Court to accept Claimant's testimony that none of the money was drug-related have resulted in a finding that the Commonwealth has met its burden of proof as to forfeiture. The following Order will therefore be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thisbe'day of November, 1994, upon consideration of the Commonwealth,s Petition for Forfeiture, following a nonjury trial and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, the Petition is GRANTED and the sum of $960.00 is hereby FORFEITED to the Commonwealth. BY THE COURT, _s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Thomas A. Placey, Esq. Assistant District Attorney NO. 214 MISCELLANEOUS 1993 Joshua D. Lock, Esq. 106 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant : rc