### Except whe n ne ce ss ar y to do othe rwi se , herea ft er , the$6, 000, whic h was thesubj ec t 1 

### of the f orf ei ture, wil l bere fe rred to as “the c urrenc y.” I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI

NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 0 3 4 - CO A SIX T H O U SA N D D O L L A R S ( $6, 000) AP P EL LA NT
v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI EX RE L. M I SS I SS I PPI BU RE AU OF NARCOT I CS APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 13/ 2013 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. ANT HONY A L AN MOZI NGO C O U R T F R O M W H IC H A P P E A L E D : JE F F E R S O N D A V IS C O U N T Y C IR C U IT COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: THOM AS P
. W EL CH J R. A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E : JA C K IE R A Y B O S T II NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: CU RR E NC Y F OR F E I T E D D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 30/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E L E E , C . J. , I SH E E A N D JA M E S, JJ. J AM ES , J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. A n th o n y B ro w n file d a p e titio n in th e C ir c u it C o u rt o f Je ffe rso n D a v is C o u n ty cont es t i ng the f

or f ei tur e of s i x thous and dol l ar s ( $6, 000) s ei zed by the M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau 1
o f N arc o ti cs (M B N ). F o llo w in g a b en ch tr ial , the tri al co u rten tered an o rde r of fo rfeitu re fi n d ing that the c u rren cy w a s u se d , o r w as in tend ed for u se, i n v iolati o n o f M issi ssipp i’ s U ni f or m C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s L aw , and thatB r ow n f ai l ed t o pr ove i nnocentow ner s hi p of th e c u rr e n c y . B ro w n a p p e a ls . F in d in g n o e rr o r, w e a ff ir m .

### 2 FACTS ¶ 2
. O n Ja n u a ry 2 2 , 2 0 1 2 , Jo h n N o rm a n C o le w a s a rr e s te d a ft e r h e fa iled to sto p a t a dr i ver ’ s l i cens e che ckpoi ntthatw as bei ng conduct ed by l aw enf or cementof

f i cer s atthe i nt er s ect i on of

H i ghw ay 84 an d C l em R oad i n J ef f er s on D avi s C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. A f t er a sh o rt p o lice p u rsu it, C o le c ra sh e d h is T o y o ta C a m ry in to the rea r o f a tra iler a p p ro x im a tely f i ve mi l es f

r om the chec kpoi nt . C ol e f l ed the acc i dents cene on f oot , butw as appr ehende d by M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Saf ety Patr ol Tr ooperSt ephen Sm i th s om e tw o hundr ed yar ds f r om the cr as h s i t e. U pon appr ehendi ng C ol e, T r ooperSm i th di s cover ed a r ol l of m oney, s ecur ed by a rubberband, and a cl earpl as t i c bag cont ai ni ng a w hi t e pow dery subs t ance on t he gr ound i n the i m m edi at e ar ea of C ol e’ s arr es t . I tw as l at erdet erm i ned thatthe r ol l of money cont ai ned $6, 000, and thatthe w hi t e pow dery s ubs t ance w as co cai ne. T r ooperSm i th then
canva s s ed the ar ea betw een the vehi cl e and the pl ace w her e C ol e w as appr ehende d and f ound
a p las tic b a g c o n tain in g a g re e n lea fy su b sta n c e , late r d e ter m in e d to b e m a riju a n a . D u e to the pr es ence of

the s us pect ed nar cot i cs and as s oci at ed curr ency, M B N A gentH eather Sul l i van w as cal l ed t o the s cene . Pur s uantt o the pr ovi s i ons of the U ni f

orm C ontr ol l ed Subst ance s L aw , A gentSul l i van s ei zed the curr ency a nd M B N s oughtf or f ei tur e of the
c u rr e n c y . ¶3. O n J ul y 10, 2012, B row n fi l ed a p et i t i on t o cont es tthe f or f ei tur e of the curr ency, c laim in g a n o w n e rsh ip in ter e st in th e c u rre n c y a n d a ss e rtin g th a t th e c u rre n c y w a s illeg a lly
s ei zed by M B N . M B N f i l ed a r es pons e and count er cl ai m f orf or f ei tur e. O n J anuary 2, 2013, M B N r es ponded t o B r ow n’ s di s covery r eques t s . I n i t s r es pons es , M B N i dent i f i ed A gent Sul l i van and K ei th M cM ahan, a f or ens i c s ci ent i s tw i th t he M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Labor at ory, as

### In hi s brie f be fore this Court , Brown as se rt s that th e o riginal t

ri aldat e wa s s et

for 2 

### Janu ary 1 4, 2 01 3, an d th at MB N was granted a co ntinuan ce onthat d ay. H ow ever, w e no te that t hes e f ac ts are not

re fl ec te d in t

he rec ord. The rec ord doe s not cont ain an order

se tting thetrial f or J anuary 14, 2013, or

an order granting MBN a c ontinuanc e. Nor has thi s Cour t bee n provi ded wi th a

trans cript

of the proce edings that

took pl ac e on J anuary 14, 2013. Again, the re cord does not cont ain an order res etting the tri alfor

Febr uar y 4, 2013; 3 

### ho wev er, the reco rd reflects th at the trial d id infact take p lace onthat d ay. 3 w i tnes s es ; s t at ed thatM B N di d notant i ci pat e des i gnat i ng an expertw i tnes s “atthi s t i m e”; and produc ed a cert i f

i ed cr i m e- l ab r eportfr om t he M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Labor at ory s i gned by M cM ahan. T he r eportr ef l ect ed the r es ul t s of a drug anal ys i s conduct ed by M cM ahan, w hi ch
c o n fi rm e d th a t th e s u b s ta n c e s s e iz e d fr o m C o le w e re in fa c t ille g a l n a rc o tic s . ¶4. A ccor di ng t o B r ow n, on J anuary 14, 2013, the dat e of tr i al , M B N r eques t ed, and w as gr ant ed, a cont i nuance due t o the unava i l abi l i ty of an expertw i tnes s . T he tr i al w as r es etf or 2 February 4, 2013. O n J anuary 22, 2013, thi r t een da ys bef or e tr i al , M B N fi l ed a not i ce 3 d esig n ati n g A g en t S u ll ivan a n d M cM ah an a s e x p ert w itn esse s. T ri al w as h eld o n F eb rua ry 4, 2013. B r ow n obj ect ed t o the expe r tt es t i m ony of A gentSul l i van and M cM ahan, as s ert i ng that the exp ertw i tnesses w ere no tt i m el y desi gn at ed. T he tri al courtoverruled B row n ’s obj ect i on. ¶5. B r ow n t es t i f

i ed thathe ow ned the curr ency s ei zed f r om C ol e. B r ow n t es t i f

i ed that the
s our ce of

the curr ency w as a sett l ementagr eementr eac hed w i th hi s empl oyerf ora bac k i nj ury B r ow n sust ai ned in 2009 w hi l e w orki ng i n V i cks bur g, M i s s i s s i ppi
. I n J une 2012, B ro w n ’s e m p lo y e r’s in su ra n c e c a rrie r iss u e d tw o se ttl e m e n t ch e c k s, to talin g a p p ro x im a tely $50, 000 t o B r ow n. T he chec ks w er e i s s ued by Bank of A m er i ca. A ccor di ng t o B r ow n, upon re c e iv in g the ch e c k s, h e p e rso n a lly tra v e led fro m h is h o m e in B ro o k h a v e n , M iss iss ip p i, t o

### Acc ording to Brown, the c los es t Bank of Am eric a, thebank on whic h these ttle me nt 4 

### check s were drawn , is locatedin P ensaco la. 4 th e Ba n k o f

Am e r i c a b r a n c h i n P e n s a c o l a , F l o r i d a , i n o r d e rt o c a s h th e c h e c k s . Br o wn 4 t es t i f i ed that , upon r eturni ng t o B r ookhaven, he keptthe s ett l ementm oney i n a s af e i ns i de hi s hom e. Shor t l y ther eaf t er , B r ow n tr avel ed t o Sl i del l , Loui s i ana, t o pur chas e a vehi cl e that h e fo u n d o n th e in te rn e t. ¶6. B r ow n t es t i f

i ed thathe f

ound a notherve hi cl e, a M ont e C ar l o SS, on the i nt ernetf or s al e i n H att i es bur g, M i s s i s s i ppi
. A f t ero ne t el ephone c onver s at i on w i th the ow nerof the M o n t e Ca r l o , Br o wn d e c i d e d t o p u r c h a s e th e v e h i c l e wi th o u te v e rs e e i n g th e v e h i c l e . On J une 22, 2012, B r ow n gave Col e $6, 000 s o thatC ol e coul d tr avel t o H att i es bur g t o del i ver th e mo n e y t o Br o wn ’ s c o u s i n s o th a tth e c o u s i n c o u l d p u r c h a s e t h e ve h i c l e f o rh i m. H o w e v e r, B ro w n tes tified th a t af ter g iv in g C o le th e m o n e y , h is c o u sin c o n tac ted h im a n d to ld hi m thathe i ns pect ed the vehi cl e, and advi s ed B r ow n a gai ns tthe pur chas e. Brow n cl ai m ed h e th e n c a lled C o le a n d to ld h im to b rin g the m o n e y b a c k to h im . A c c o rd in g to B ro w n , C o le
w a s e n ro u te to B ro o k h a v e n to re tu rn th e m o n e y w h e n h e w a s a rr e s te d
. ¶7. T r ooperSm i th t es t i f i ed t o hi s r ol e i n Col e’ s a rr es ta nd t he recov ery of the i l l egal
nar cot i cs and the curr ency. A gentSul l i van t es t i f i ed that , bas ed on hertr ai ni ng and
e x p e rie n c e , the c u rren cy , w h ich w as “ro ll ed up i n a ba ll i n a rub b er an d
. . . an d l o ca ted in cl os e pr oxi m i ty t o drug evi dence , ” w as “drug m oney. ” A gentSul l i van f ur thert es t i f

i ed that
s h e in ter v iew e d C o le o n tw o o c c a sio n s fo llo w in g h is a rre st a n d , o n b o th o c c a sio n s, C o le deni ed havi ng any know l edge aboutthe money. Fi nal l y, M cM ahan t es t i f i ed t o the f

i ndi ngs of the drug a nal ys i s he pe r f orm ed on the evi dence r ecove r ed f r om C ol e. M cM ahan t es t i f i ed

### 5

thats ubm i s s i on one cont ai ned 1. 7 gr ams of m ar i j uana a nd thats ubm i s s i on tw o cont ai ned 21. 4 gr ams of

coca i ne. ¶8
. A t t he concl us i on of tr i a l , the tr i a l c ou r t e nt e r e d a n or de r of f or f e i tur e , f i nd i ng tha t M B N had pr oved, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , thatthe curr ency i n ques t i on w as us ed, ori nt ended f

orus e, i n vi ol at i on of

the U ni f orm C ontr ol l ed Subs t ances L aw and that Br o wn ’ s a s s e r t i o n th a th e wa s a n i n n o c e n to wn e ro f th e c u rr e n c y l a c k e d c r e d i b i l i ty . Br o wn filed a m o tio n fo r a jud g m e n t no tw ith sta n d in g the v e rd ict o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , a n e w trial,
w hi ch the tr i al cour tdeni ed by an or derent er ed M ay 11, 2013. B r ow n appea l s , r ai s i ng the f ol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe tr i al c our ta bus ed i t s di s cr et i on by perm i t t i ng the t es t i m ony of unt i m el y des i gnat ed expe r tw i tnes s es ; ( 2) w hetherthe ver di ctw as agai ns tthe
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
.

DI S CU S S I ON I . W he t her t he t r i alc our t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by pe r m i t t i ng t he tes ti m on y o f un ti m el y d esi gn ated ex p ert w i tnesses . ¶9. B r ow n f

i r s targues thatM B N ’s d esi gn at i on of A gentSul l i van and M cM ahan w as unt i m el y and thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n per m i t t i ng t he expe r tt es t i m ony. A s not ed above , b o th A g en t Su ll ivan an d M cM ah an w ere fi rstiden ti fi ed as fa ct w itn esse s b y M B N in M B N ’s
r es pons es t o dis cov ery on Ja nuary 2, 2013. O n J anuary 22, 2013, M B N des i gnat ed A gent Sul l i van and M cM ahan a s expertw i tnes s es . A ccor di ng t o Brow n, the tr i al courtperm i t t ed the expe r tt es t i m ony i n vi ol at i on of U ni f orm R ul e of

C i r cui tand C ounty C our t4. 04, w hi ch B ro w n a rg u e s n e c e s s ita te s re v e rs a l. W e d is a g re e .

### 6

¶ 1 0
. O u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew fo r a tria l co u rt’s a d m iss io n o r su p p re s s io n o f e v id e n c e is
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . C ow an v. Mis s . B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 2 S o . 3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (¶ 1 3 ) (M iss . C t. A pp . 20 09 )
. Furthe r mor e , “ [ t ] he a dmi s s i on of e xp e r tt e s t i mony i s a dd r e s s e d t o the s ou nd di s cr et i on of

the tr i al j udge. ” Id
. ( quot i ng R ober t s v. G r af e A ut o C o. , 701 So. 2d 1093, 1098 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). ¶11. T he t es t i m ony of w i tnes s es i s gener al l y governed by M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of E vi dence 7 0 1 a n d 7 0 2 . R u le 7 0 1 p ro v id e s: If th e w itn ess is n o t t esti fyin g a s a n e x p ert, the w itn ess' s testi m o n y in th e fo rm o f op inion s o r i n feren ce s is l im it ed to tho se o p inion s o r i n feren ce s w h ich a re ( a) r at i onal l y bas ed on the per cepti on of the w i tnes s , ( b) hel pf

ul t o the cl ear under s t andi ng of

the t es t i m ony orthe det erm i nat i on of a f acti n i s s ue, and ( c) notbas ed on s ci ent i fi c, techni cal , orothers peci al i zed know l edge w i thi n the s cope of R ul e 702. L ik e w ise , R u le 7 0 2 p ro v id e s: I f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orother speci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof factt o u nd ers t and the ev i den ce or t o d et erm i ne a fa ct in i ssue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expe r tby know l edge, ski l l , exper i ence , tr ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y ther et o i n the f

orm of an opi ni on or otherw i s e, i f (1) the t es t i m ony i s based u po n s uf

f i ci entf act s ordat a, ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es a nd met hods , a nd ( 3) the w i tnes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o the f act s of the ca s e. I n addi t i on, the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas hel d: I ti s i m por t antt hatw e notbl urt he di s t i nct i on betw een Rul es 701 and 702, not so m u c h fo r a d m iss ib ili ty , as fo r n o tic e a n d o p p o rtu n ity to p re p a re re b u ttal. E xpertt es t i m ony and opi ni ons ar e s ubj ectt o s peci al di s covery rul es i n bot h the ci vi l and cr i m i nal ar enas . T hi s C our thas al s o adopt ed a pol i cy w hi ch di ct at es that[ expert ] w i tnes s es be of f er ed as s uch bef

or e of f er i ng [ expert ] t es t i m ony. T hi s po l i c y a l l ows the o pp os i ng p a r ty a mpl e o pp ortun i ty t o c ha l l e ng e t he w i tnes s ' s qual i f

i cat i ons t o r ender suc h [ an] opi ni on bef or e the ques t i on s o lic itin g [th e ] o p in io n is p o s e d in fr o n t o f t h e [c o u rt ].

### 7

Sa m p le v . S ta te , 6 4 3 S o . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ); see al so R am os
v . S ta te , 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 7 (¶ 3 6 ) ( M is s . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶ 1 2
. A t iss u e h e re is n o tice in c o m p lian c e w ith R u le 4 .0 4 A o f th e U n ifo rm R u les o f C irc u it and C ounty C our t . R ul e 4. 04A st at es that , “[ a] bs ents peci al ci r cumst ance s , the courtw i l l not
a llo w tes tim o n y a t tria l of an ex p e rt w itn e ss w h o w a s n o t d e sig n a ted a s a n e x p e rt w itn e ss to all att o rne y s o f reco rd a t l ea st si x ty d ay s b efo re tri al. ” It i s u n d ispu ted th at th e e x p erts w ere notdes i gnat ed s i xty days pr i ort o tr i al
. T r i al w as he l d on February 4, 2013. A gentSul l i van and M cM ahan w er e i dent i f i ed as m at er i al w i t nes s es i n M B N ’ s di s covery r es pons es on Ja n u a ry 2 , 2 0 1 3 ; ho w e v e r, M B N d id n o t de sig n a te A g e n t S u lli v a n a n d M c M a h a n a s e x p e rts unt i l J anuary 22, 2013.

A . W ai ver ¶ 1 3
. B o x v . S ta te , 437 So. 2d 19 ( M i s s . 1983) , and i t s pr ogeny pr ovi de gui del i nes f ortr i al ju d g e s in d e a lin g w ith d is c o v e r y v io la tio n s . See Box , 4 3 7 S o . 2 d a t 2 3 (R o b e rt s o n , J ., sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g ). W h en fac ed w ith a d isco v ery v iolati o n , the tri al co u rtsh o u ld ad h ere th e fo llo w in g p ro c e d u re : 1 ) U p o n d e fe n se o b

jec tio n , the trial c o u rt sh o u ld g iv e th e d e fe n d a n t a r eas onabl e opportuni ty t o become f am i l i arw i th the undi s cl os ed evi dence by i nt ervi ew i ng the w i tnes s , i ns pect i ng the phys i cal evi dence , et c. 2) I f , af t erthi s oppor tuni ty forfa m i l i ar i zat i on, t he def endantbel i eves he may be p rej ud i ced b y lack of opp ortun i ty t o p repar e t o m eetthe ev i den ce, he m ust r eques ta cont i nuance . Fai l ur e t o do s o cons t i tut es a w ai verof the i s s ue. 3) I f t he def endantdoes r eques ta cont i nuance the St at e may choos e t o pr ocee d w i th tr i al and f

or ego us i ng the undi s cl os ed evi dence
. I f the St at e i s notw i l l i ng t o pr ocee d w i thoutthe evi dence , t he tr i al courtm us tgr antthe r eques t ed cont i nuance .

### 8

R o b e rs o n v . S ta te , 595 So. 2d 1310, 1316 ( M i s s . 1992) ( quot i ng C o le v . S ta te , 525 So. 2d 3 6 5 , 3 6 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ))
. ¶1 4
. O n the m o rn in g o f tria l, B ro w n , n o ti n g that h e h ad rec eive d n o ti ce o f th e ex p ert desi gn at i on s tw o w eeks pri or t o tr i al , i n v i olat i on of R ule 4.04 A , st at ed: “So I am j ust obj ect i ng t o any expe r tt es t i m ony el i ci t ed f r om ei ther[ des i gn at ed expe r tw i tnes s ]
. ” A tno t i m e di d B r ow n r eques ta cont i nuance . T hus , w e f i nd B r ow n w ai ved thi s i s s ue. B . Speci al C i rcum s t ances ¶15. A s not ed above , the a dmi s s i on of expertt es t i m ony i s addr es s ed t o the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge. Fur therm or e, R ul e 4. 04 perm i t s unt i m el y des i gnat i on i n s peci al
c i r c u ms t a n c e s . “ Th e p u rp o s e o f th e d i s c o v e ry ru l e s p r o mu l g a t e d b y th e M i s s i s s i p p i S u p r e me C our ti s thatpart i es m i ght‘ avoi d tr i al by ambush’ and have ‘ a r eas onabl e t i m e t o pr epar e f or tr i al
. ’ ” A P

A CMis s . I

nc. v. Johns on , 15 So. 3d 465, 473 ( ¶17) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2009) ( quot i ng C ongl eton v. Shel l

f is h C ul t ur e I

nc. , 8 0 7 S o . 2 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 6 (¶ 1 2 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 )). T h is is no t a si tuation w h ere o n e p arty is v ict im to u n fair surp ri se o r tri al by am b u sh
. In M B N ’s dis cov ery r espon ses, M B N i den t i fi ed b oth A gen tS ull i van and M cM ahan as w i tnesse s, iden ti fi ed the s u b

ject m att er o f ea ch w itn ess’s testi m o n y , an d p rod u ce d the c ri m e-lab rep o rt gener at ed by M cM ahan; thus , B r ow n knew thatM B N w as l i kel y t o cal l t hes e w i tnes s es and h ad in h is po sses sio n th e c ri m e-lab rep o rtthat w as th e su b ject m att er o f M cM ah an ’s te s tim o n y . Comp a r e APAC , 1 5 S o . 3 d a t 4 7 5 (¶ 2 3 ) (n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n fo r fa ili n g to g ran t a co n ti n u an ce d u e to th e p lai n ti ff’s u n ti m ely d esig n ati o n o f ex p ert w itn esse s w h ere
w itn e ss e s w e re d isc lo se d d u rin g d isc o v e ry , alth o u g h n o t as e x p e rts, a n d m e re ly tes tified to in fo rm a tio n c o n ta in e d in m e d ic a l r e c o rd s d is c lo s e d d u ri n g d is c o v e r y ), and I nt 'lP aperC o.

### 9

v. Tow ns end , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 1 , 7 5 7 (¶3 4 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (tri al co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n in a n eg li g en ce ac ti o n b y fail ing to g ran t a co n ti n u an ce d u e to th e p lai n ti ff’ s unt i m el y desi gnat i on of an expe r tw i tnes s , w her e the expe r tw as des i gnat ed one mont h pr i or t o tr i al and the exp ert ’ s t es t i m ony added a thi r d theory of l i abi l i ty and had the ef f ectof
c a u s in g s e v e re p re

ju d ic e to th e d e fe n s e ). ¶ 1 6
. F u rth e rm o re , the trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t sp e c ial c irc u m sta n c e s w e re p re se n t to p e rm it the admi s s i on of

the t es t i m ony, s t at i ng: I f thi s w er e a j ury tr i al ora f act [
- ] f i nderbe s i des the C our t , I thi nk i tw oul d be a t o u g h e ri s s u e . B u t. . . I th i n k i t 's a t e c h n i c a l a r g u m e n tth a tth e y w e r e n 't d e sig n a ted
. . . b u t th a t th e y w e re k n o w n to b e fa c t w itn e ss e s. A n d I' ll t a k e it f orw hati t ' s w or th and thei ropi ni on f orw hati t ' s w or th. T h u s, th e tria l c o u rt n o ted th a t sp e c ial c irc u m sta n c e s w e re p re se n t an d sta ted th a t itw o u ld g iv e th e a p p ro p ri a te w e ig h t to e a c h w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y . ¶1 7. “Sa nc t i on s a r e nott o be i m pos ed pers e f orevery di s covery vi ol at i on, and a det erm i nat i on of

w hethert o i m pos e s uch a s anct i on i s or di nari l y ves t ed i n the s ound di s cr et i on of

the tr i al j udge. ” APAC , 15 So. 3d at475 ( ¶24) ( quot i ng Ladnerv. Ladner , 436 So. 2d 1366, 1371 ( M i s s . 1983) )
. U nderthe ci r cumst ance s he r e, w e do notf i nd a n abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he tr i al court ’ s f ai l ur e t o gr antB r ow n’ s obj ect i on t o any expe r tt es t i m ony and perm i t t i ng A gen tS ull i van and M cM ahan t o t es t i f y. A l s o, as s t at ed above , B r ow n di d not
re q u e s t a c o n tin u a n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . W he t he r t he ve r di c t was ag ai ns t t he ov e r whel m i ng wei ght of t he evi dence . ¶18
. B row n nex t arg u es that M B N fai l ed t o prove that the sei zed curr ency w as i n close p ro x im ity to n a rc o tics . P a rticu lar ly , B ro w n arg u e s th a t alth o u g h M c M a h a n , M B N ’s e x p e rt,

### 10

t es t i f i ed as t o the r es ul t s of

the drug anal ys i s he per f orm ed atthe St at e C r i m e Labor at ory, M B N f ai l ed t o i ntr oduce the al l eged nar cot i cs i nt o evi dence
. B r ow n then ar gues thatthe S ta te fa ile d to p ro v e th a t B ro w n w a s n o t a n in n o c e n t o w n e r o f t h e c u rr e n c y . ¶19. “The appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew i n f

orf ei ture cases i s the fam i l i ar s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e /cle a rly e rro n e o u s te st. ” Fo u r T h o u sa n d E ig h t H u n dre d O n e D o lla rs v . L a

fa y e tte C n ty. Me tro N

a rc o tics U

n it , 22 S o. 3 d 39 4, 396 ( ¶6) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) ( quot i ng G al l ow ay v. C i t

y of N ew A l bany , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 0 (¶ 1 5 ) (M iss . 1 9 9 9 )). T h is C o u rt w ill

“ n o t d istu rb a c irc u it co u rt' s fin d in g s u n les s it h a s a p p lied a n e rro n e o u s le g a l sta n d a rd to deci de the ques t i on of

f act . ” Id
. In a d d it ion , “[w ] e re m ain m ind ful o f th e fa ct th at forfeitu re s t atut es ar e pena l i n natur e and mustb e st ri ct l y cons trued. ” I d. ( quot i ng E vans v. C i t y of A ber deen , 926 So. 2d 181, 183 ( ¶5) ( M i s s . 2006) )
. Fi nal l y, “[ t ] he tr i erof f actm ay acton ci r cumst ant i al e vi dence a nd i nf er ence s a s w el l as di r ectevi dence
. ” Tw ent y Thous and E ight H undr ed D ol lars (

$20, 800. 00) i n U

. S. C ur r ency v. Stat e ex r el
. Mis s . B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 115 So. 3d 137, 141 ( ¶21) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( quo t i ng E vans , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 8 3 (¶ 5 ))
. ¶20. T he M i s s i s s i pp i Contr ol l e d Subs t a nc e s Law i s c od i f i e d i n M i s s i s s i pp i Code A nn ot a t ed
s ect i ons 41- 29- 101 thr ough - 191 (Rev. 2013). Pur s uantt o s ect i on 41- 29- 179, i f the ow ner o f p ro p e rty h a s file d a n a n sw e r d e n y in g th a t p ro p e rty is s u b jec t to fo rfe itu re , “ th e b u rd e n is on the pet i t i onert o pr ove thatthe pr operty i s s ubj ectt o f or f ei tur e. . . . T he s t andar d of pr oof pl ace d upon the pet i t i oner . . . . s hal l be by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence
. ” M i ss. C ode A n n . § 4 1 -29 -17 9 (2) (R ev . 2 0 1 3 ). S ec ti o n 4 1 -29 -15 3 iden ti fi es p rop erty su b ject t o civ il f or f ei tur e; part i cul ar l y, sec t i on 41-29- 153( a) ( 7) provi des : “A l l m oni es , coi n[ , ] and curr ency f ound i n cl ose p roxi m i ty t o f or f ei t abl e contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s . . . ar e pr es um ed t o be

### 11

fo rfe itab le .
. . ; th e b u rde n of pro o f i s u p o n clai m an ts o f th e p rop erty to reb u t th is p re s u m p tio n .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -2 9 -1 5 3 (a )( 7 ) ( R e v . 2 0 1 3 ). ¶2 1. T hus , M B N w as r e qu i r e d t o pr ov e , b y a p r e po nd e r a nc e o f the e vi de nce, t hat t he
curr e nc y w a s f

ou nd i n c l os e p r ox i mi ty t o c on tr ol l e d s ub s t a nc e s i n or de rt o r ai s e the p r e s u mp t i o n th a tth e c u rr e n c y wa s f o r f e i t a b l e . T h e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f th e n s h i f

t e d t o Br o wn to re b u t th a t p re s u m p tio n b y e s ta b lis h in g th a t h e w a s a n in n o c e n t o w n e r o f t h e $ 6 ,0 0 0
.

A . C l os e Proxi m i t y ¶22. B r ow n ar gues thatM B N f ai l ed t o pr ove, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , that the
c u rre n c y w a s fo u n d in c lo se p ro x im ity to c o n tro lled su b sta n c e s b e c a u se M B N fa iled to i ntr oduce the contr ol l ed subs t ance s i nt o evi dence
. W e di s agr ee and f i nd thatM B N of

f er ed
s u ff ic ie n t p ro o f t h a t th e c u rr e n c y w a s fo u n d in c lo s e p ro x im ity to c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s . ¶23. A s not ed above, the bur den of pr oof i n f or f ei tur e ca s es i s by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , and the tr i erof f act“ m ay acton ci r cumst ant i al e vi dence a nd i nf er ence s a s w el l as di r ectevi dence
. ” T

w enty Tho usan d E igh tH un dred D ollars , 115 So. 3d at141 (¶ 21)
. H er e, T roo p er S m ith test if

ied th at he rec o v ere d the ro ll o f cu rren cy in the im m ed iat e a rea o f C o le’s arrest. T roo p er S m ith stat ed that h e re co v ere d a p last ic ba g co n tai n ing a w h it e p o w d ery s ubs t ance appr oxi m at el y f i ve f eetfr om the l ocat i on of

C ol e’ s arr es t . T r ooperSm i th f ur ther t es t i f i ed thathe di s cover ed a pl as t i c bag cont ai ni ng a gre en l eaf y s ubs t ance tw enty f

eetf r om the poi ntof

C ol e’ s arr es t , al ong C ol e’ s att empt ed es cape r out e. T r ooperSm i th t es t i f i ed that he bel i eved thatC ol e w as i n pos s es s i on of e ach i t em w hen he f

l ed hi s vehi cl e i n an att empt t o el ude pol i ce. A gentSul l i van t es t i f i ed thats he t ook cus t ody of the al l eged na r cot i cs and tr ans por t ed them t o the St at e C r i m e Labor at ory f oranal ys i s . Fi nal l y, M cM ahan t es t i f i ed that

### 12

th e a n a ly s is th a t h e p e r fo rm e d o n th e e v id e n c e re v e a le d th a t s u b m is s io n o n e c o n ta in e d 1 .7 g ra m s o f m a ri

ju a n a a n d s u b m is s io n tw o c o n ta in e d 2 1 .4 g ra m s o f c o c a in e . ¶24. W e f

i nd thatM B N pr es ent ed s uf f i ci ente vi dence e s t abl i shi ng t hat the subst ances di s cover ed dur i ng C ol e’ s arr es tw er e contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s ; ther ef or e, w e f i nd thatthe tr i al
courtw as notcl ear l y err oneous w hen i tf ound thatM B N pr oved, by a pr eponder ance of the evidence, that the cu rr ency w as f ou nd i n close proxi m i ty to contr oll ed sub st ances. A c c o rd in g ly , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

B. R e but t alof

t he Pro xi m i t y Pr e s um pt i on ¶25. Sect i on 41- 29- 153( a) ( 7) ( A ) e s t abl i s hes a n “ i nnocent - ow ner ” def ense t o for fei ture, pr ovi di ng: “N o pr operty s hal l be f or f ei t ed .
. . t o the ext entof the i nt er esto f an o w ner , by
r eas on of any ac torom i s s i on es t abl i s hed by hi m t o ha ve been comm i t t ed oromi t t ed w i thout h is k n o w led g e o r c o n se n t.” T h u s, a p e rso n ra isin g th e in n o c e n t-o w n e r d e fe n se p u rsu a n t to
s ect i on 41 -29-153( a) ( 7) ( A ) m us t : ( 1) have a n ow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n the pr operty, and ( 2) d e m o n stra te th a t th e ill e g a l ac tiv ity w a s c o m m itt e d w ith o u t h is k n o w led g e o r c o n se n t. ¶26. B r ow n ar gues thatM B N f ai l ed t o pr ove thath e w as no tan i nnocentow nerof the
curr ency a nd thatt he tr i al courterr ed i n or der i ng the curr ency f or f ei t ed. H ow ever , as di s cus s ed above , once the pre s um pt i on w as r ai s ed thatthe curr ency w as f or f ei t abl e, the bur den s hi f

t ed t o B r ow n t o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on. ¶27. I n s uppor t of hi s ar gum ent that M B N had the bu rden of provi ng that he w as notan i nnocentow nerof

the curr ency, B r ow n ci t es t o G al l ow ay v. C i t y of N ew A l bany , 735 So. 2d 407, 411 ( ¶23) ( M i s s . 1999) , i n w hi ch the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thel d: “W her e . . . an ow nerof pr operty f

i l es a ver i f

i ed answ erdenyi ng thatpr operty i s s ubj ectt o f or f ei tur e, the

### 13

bur den i s on the St at e . . . . N ece s s ar i l y the St at e mustdemonstr at e, by a pr eponder ance of th e ev id e n c e , th a t th e o w n e r h a d k n o w led g e o f o r co n se n ted to th e ill e g a l u se o f h is p ro p e rty f ordrug- r el at ed ac t i vi t i es . ” H ow everthe pr operty a ti s s ue i n thatcas e w as a s ei zed ve hi cl e, an d there w as n o q u esti o n as to the v eh icl e’s o w n ersh ip. A s the M issi ssipp i Su p rem e C o u rt hel d i n O ne Ford Mus tang Conver t i bl e v. Stat e ex r el
. C lay C ount y Sher i f f ' s D epar tm ent , 676 S o . 2 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ), “th e d e fin iti o n o f o w n e r in th e M iss iss ip p i M o to r V e h icle T itl e L aw es t abl i s hes a pr i m a f aci e ca s e of

ow ner s hi p. T hi s pr es um pt i on . . . i s r ebutt abl e. T he
r ef er ence s t o ow nerw i thi n the f or f ei tur e s t atut es i ndi cat e thatpr operty i nt er es t s mustbe not onl y l egal but‘ bona- f

i de. ’ ” Thus, i n G al l ow ay , t h e c l a i ma n twa s a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma f aci e ca s e of

ow ner s hi p i n the vehi cl e. ¶ 2 8
. W e h a v e h e ld tha t “[w ]he n [a] trial ju d g e sits as the fin d e r o f f a c t, h e h a s th e so le
a u th o ri ty fo r d e te rm in in g th e c r e d ib ility o f w itn e s s e s .” Tw ent y Thous and E ightH

undr ed D ollars , 115 So. 3d at143 ( ¶26) ( quot i ng Yarbr ough v. C am phor , 64 5 S o. 2d 86 7, 86 9 (M i ss. 1 9 9 4 ) )
. Up o n r e v i e w, “ a c i r c u i tc o u r tj u d g e s i t t i n g wi th o u ta j u ry i s a c c o r d e d th e s a me def er ence w i th r egar d t o hi s f i ndi ngs as a cha ncel l or , and hi s fi nd i ngs w i l l notbe r ever s ed on appea l w her e they ar e s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al , cr edi bl e, and r eas onabl e evi dence
. ” I d. ¶29. U nli ke t he cl ai m anti n G al l ow ay , Br own f a i l e d t o make a pr i ma f a c i e c a s e thathe pos s es s ed an ow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n the s ei zed curr ency. T he onl y evi dence , as i de f r om e v id e n c e d o c u m e n tin g h is b a c k -i n ju ry se ttl e m e n t, th a t B ro w n p ro d u c e d in su p p o rt o f h is claim w as h is o w n t esti m o n y , w h ich the tri al co u rtfou n d n o t t o b e c red ible. T h e tri al co u rt found that B row n w as extrem el y caref ul w i th m on ey. B row n tr aveled t o P ensaco l a t o cash hi s s ett l ementchec ks i n orde rt o avoi d the del ay thatw oul d r es ul tf r om cas hi ng the che cks

### 14

at a loc al ba n k
. U p o n return ing to B roo k h av en , B row n p u rch ase d a sa fe in w h ich to store h is m o n e y a n d k e p t th e sa fe in h is h o m e . B ro w n th e n p e rso n a lly tra v e led to S lid e ll t o p u rc h a s e a v e h ic le. B ro w n tes tified th a t h e e n tru ste d C o le w ith $ 6 ,0 0 0 so th a t C o le c o u ld tr avel t o H att i es burg t o del i verthe money t o hi s cous i n s o hi s cous i n coul d pur chas e a vehi cl e f

orB r ow n. H ow ever , B r ow n pr ovi ded f ew det ai l s pert ai ni ng t o the al l eged tr ans act i on. B r ow n s t at ed thathe f ound the vehi cl e on the i nt ernet , butcoul d notr eca l l on
w hi ch w ebs i t e. B r ow n coul d notr emem berthe name of the i ndi vi dual s el l i ng t he vehi cl e, the model year , orthe as ki ng pr i ce. Fur ther , B r ow n coul d notr emem berC ol e’ s t el ephone
num ber , hi s cous i n’ s t el ephone num ber , ore ven hi s ow n t el ephone num beratthe t i m e of the
a lleg e d tra n sa c tio n . A s th e trial c o u rt sta ted : [I ]td o e s n o t m a k e s e n s e to th e C o u rtth a t [B ro w n ] w o u ld e n tru s t $ 6 ,0 0 0
. . . to a p erso n w ith o u t any k ind reflecti o n [si c] of the e n tru stm en t w h atso ev er. I tdoe s n’ tmake s ens e . . . that[ B r ow n] does n’ tr emem ber[ C ol e’ s ] t el ephone num ber , does n’ tr emem bera ny s al es per s on’ s na m e abouta ve hi cl e, . . . [ and do es not] rem em ber any dates
.

. . . . I ti s notcr edi bl e . . . thata cl ai m ant w ou l d ass ertow ner s hi p of thi s s um of c a sh , y e t h a v e n o b e tter r e c o llec tio n o r p ro o f th a t h e w a s n o t in v o lv e d
. . . w ith M r. C o le in s o m e . . . a lle g e d ille g a l a c tiv ity
. ¶30. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al court , s i t t i ng as the f act - f i nder , pr oper l y cons i der ed the evi dence and t es t i m ony, i ncl udi ng t he cr edi bi l i ty of B r ow n, and thatthe tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs thatthe
c u rre n c y w a s fo u n d in c lo se p ro x im ity to c o n tro lled su b sta n c e s a n d th a t B ro w n fa iled to
r ebutthe pr es um pt i on t hatthe curr ency w as s ubj ectt o f or f ei tur e w er e s uppor t ed by
s u b s ta n tia l, c re d ib le , a n d re a s o n a b le e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶ 3 1
. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T O F JE F F E R SO N D A V IS

### 15

CO UNTY I S AFF I RM ED. ALL CO S TS OF THI S APP EAL AR E AS S ES S ED TO THE AP P EL LA NT . LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M A X W E L L A N D F A IR , JJ . , C O N C U R . IR V IN G , P . J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D IN THE RE S UL T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.