- 621 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. $18,000

Cite as 311 Neb. 621

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Eighteen Thousand 

Dollars in U. S. Currency ($18,000.00), 

appellee, and Christopher Bouldin, 

Interested Party, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 20, 2022. No. S-21-660.

1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question 

of law that an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.

2. Appeal and Error. 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.

Appeal from the District Court for Seward County: James C. 

Stecker, Judge. Affirmed.

Bradley A. Sipp for appellant.

Lory A. Pasold, Seward Chief Deputy County Attorney, for 

appellee State of Nebraska.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Papik, J.

A law enforcement officer seized $18,000 in cash from 

Christopher Bouldin during a traffic stop. Following a trial in 

subsequent forfeiture proceedings, the district court found that 

the State had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the 

cash was used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation 

of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and ordered the 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

06/03/2022 09:10 AM CDT
- 622 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. $18,000

Cite as 311 Neb. 621

cash forfeited to the State. Bouldin now appeals and asserts 

that the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof 

and that there was insufficient evidence to order the forfeiture. 

We affirm.

BACKGROUND

This case began when the State filed a petition pursuant 

to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431 (Reissue 2016), alleging that on 

or about August 1, 2020, an officer with the Seward County 

Sheriff’s Department seized $18,000 from Bouldin. According 

to the petition, the cash was used or intended to be used to 

facilitate a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act 

and asked the district court to order that it be forfeited to the 

State. Shortly thereafter, Bouldin entered his appearance and 

filed an answer in which he asserted that the cash should be 

returned to him.

The matter was set for trial, but Bouldin did not appear. 

The only witness to testify was the officer who seized the cash 

from Bouldin. The officer testified that on the day at issue, he 

was operating a marked patrol car on Interstate 80 in Seward 

County, Nebraska. There, he initiated a traffic stop and, later, 

a search of a vehicle driven by Bouldin. The officer found and 

seized $18,000 in cash.

The officer testified to various pieces of information that he 

obtained during the stop that led him to believe that Bouldin 

intended to purchase a large amount of marijuana with the 

seized money. Among other things, the officer testified that 

Bouldin told the officer he was traveling from his home in 

Virginia to Colorado; that a certified drug dog positively 

indicated the presence of illegal narcotics in the vehicle; 

that Bouldin’s phone had pictures of marijuana taken in both 

Virginia and Colorado; that a Colorado area code phone 

number had sent text messages to Bouldin’s phone containing photographs and video of what the officer identified as 

marijuana and “THC wax”; that Bouldin had sent text messages to the same number requesting “8 widow” and “8 goat”; 
- 623 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. $18,000

Cite as 311 Neb. 621

and that in the officer’s opinion, the person using the other 

phone number was offering to sell marijuana and “THC wax,” 

and that Bouldin was agreeing to make a purchase. The State 

also introduced evidence that Bouldin had previously been 

convicted in Utah of attempted possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

After the trial, the district court entered an order in which it 

stated that it had found by clear and convincing evidence that 

the seized cash was used or intended to be used to facilitate a 

violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. The district court ordered the cash forfeited to the State and entered an 

order of distribution.

Bouldin filed a timely appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Bouldin assigns that the district court erred 

by (1) applying a clear and convincing evidence standard of 

proof and (2) finding that there was sufficient evidence to 

order forfeiture.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law that 

an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. See 

State v. Riessland, 310 Neb. 262, 965 N.W.2d 13 (2021).

ANALYSIS

Standard of Proof.

Bouldin claims that the district court erred by applying a 

clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in considering whether the money was used or intended to be used to 

commit a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances 

Act. He submits that the correct standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

The parties agree that this case is governed by § 28-431. 

That statute sets forth how such cases are to proceed if, as here, 

a party files a claim to property that the State has sought to 

forfeit. It provides in relevant part:
- 624 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. $18,000

Cite as 311 Neb. 621

If the claimant proves by a preponderance of the evidence 

that he or she (a) has not used or intended to use the 

property to facilitate an offense in violation of the act, 

(b) has an interest in such property as owner or lienor or 

otherwise, acquired by him or her in good faith, and (c) 

at no time had any actual knowledge that such property 

was being or would be used in, or to facilitate, the violation of the act, the court shall order that such property . . . 

be returned to the claimant. If there are no claims, if all 

claims are denied, or if the value of the property exceeds 

all claims granted and it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that such property was used in violation of 

the act, the court shall order disposition of such property 

at such time as the property is no longer required as evidence in any criminal proceeding.

§ 28-431(6).

Bouldin makes no argument he carried the burden of proof 

that the foregoing language places on the claimant. His argument is instead focused on the burden of proof the statute 

places on the State.

Bouldin’s argument relies on prior cases governed by 

§ 28-431 in which we observed that the State was subject 

to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. See, e.g., State v. 

Franco, 257 Neb. 15, 594 N.W.2d 633 (1999); State v. 1987 

Jeep Wagoneer, 241 Neb. 397, 488 N.W.2d 546 (1992). At the 

time of those cases, however, § 28-431(4) expressly provided 

that in order for property to be forfeited, the State was required 

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that property was used 

in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. See 

§ 28-431(4) (Reissue 2008). In 2016, the Legislature amended 

the statute to remove the “beyond a reasonable doubt” language and to replace it with “clear and convincing evidence.” 

See 2016 Neb. Laws, L.B. 1106, § 6. Because the district court 

applied the standard of proof required by the governing statute 

and Bouldin makes no claim that the statute is unconstitutional, 

we find no error on the part of the district court.
- 625 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. $18,000

Cite as 311 Neb. 621

We acknowledge that in State v. Franco, supra, one of 

the cases upon which Bouldin relies, we held that forfeiture 

actions pursuant to § 28-431 are criminal proceedings. 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.

Sufficiency of Evidence.

Bouldin’s second assignment of error is that there was insufficient evidence for the district court to find that the $18,000 

was subject to forfeiture. Bouldin’s brief, however, provides 

next to nothing in the way of argument in support of this assertion. He states only that the district court “did not find that 

the evidence in the case at hand met the [beyond a reasonable 

doubt standard], very possibly because it simply did not.” Brief 

for appellant at 9.

[2] As we have previously emphasized, an appellant is 

required to identify in his or her brief the factual and legal 

bases that support the assignments of error. See Marcuzzo v. 

Bank of the West, 290 Neb. 809, 862 N.W.2d 281 (2015). It is 

a fundamental rule of appellate practice that an alleged error 

must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in 

the brief of the party asserting the error. See State v. Filholm, 

287 Neb. 763, 848 N.W.2d 571 (2014). The failure to comply 

with this rule comes with consequences. 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. Id.

We find that Bouldin has failed to provide an adequate 

argument in support of his second assignment of error. The 

totality of his argument is an assertion that the evidence was 

insufficient under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. 

As we have already explained, Bouldin has not shown that 

the State was required to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt 

standard. More importantly, Bouldin has not provided any 
- 626 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. $18,000

Cite as 311 Neb. 621

discussion of why the evidence was insufficient under any 

standard of proof. Because Bouldin failed to provide a specific argument in support of his second assignment of error, 

we will not address it. See Filholm, supra.

CONCLUSION

Because we find no error on the part of the district court, 

we affirm.

Affirmed.