Title: Downs v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 165, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PHILLIP W. DOWNS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 165, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 98M-10-015 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 14, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   March 20, 2003 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal, the record below, the Superior Court’s December 30, 2002 report 
following remand and the appellant’s supplemental memorandum,1 it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In October 1988, the petitioner-appellant, Phillip W. Downs, 
filed a petition for return of property in the Superior Court.2  The property he 
sought to have returned was approximately $1,800.00 in United States 
currency seized by the Delaware State Police on August 27, 1998. On March 
                                                          
 
1The State of Delaware waived its right to submit a supplemental memorandum. 
2 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4784 (1995); SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 71.3. 
 
2
13, 2002, the Superior Court denied Downs’ petition.  Downs filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s March 13, 2002 order3 and from the Superior 
Court’s April 10, 2002 order denying his motion for a transcript of the 
evidentiary hearing before the commissioner at State expense.   
 
(2) 
On appeal, this Court determined that the Superior Court 
abused its discretion by denying Downs’ request for a transcript of the 
evidentiary hearing without first determining whether he was able to afford 
the cost of the transcript and by adopting the commissioner’s report and 
recommendation without reviewing the transcript.4  We remanded this matter 
to the Superior Court for consideration of whether Downs was able to afford 
the cost of the transcript, for preparation of the transcript at State expense, if 
necessary, and  for de novo review of the commissioner’s findings.5   
 
(3) 
Following remand, the Superior Court determined that Downs 
was indigent and directed the transcript to be prepared at State expense.  
Following a review of the transcript, and as noted in its report following 
remand, the Superior Court found that the commissioner’s findings were 
supported by the testimony presented at the hearing.  The Superior Court 
                                                          
 
3The Superior Court adopted the January 24, 2002 report and recommendation of the 
commissioner.  DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 512(b) (1999); SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 132. 
4Downs v. State, Del. Supr., No. 165, 2002, Holland, J. (Oct. 29, 2002). 
5SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 132(b). 
 
3
adopted the commissioner’s report and recommendation and denied Downs’ 
petition for return of property.6  In his supplemental memorandum, Downs 
claims the seized currency should be returned to him because he proved at 
the hearing that it represented his gambling winnings. 
 
(4) 
 Where the State demonstrates probable cause to have initiated 
a forfeiture proceeding, the burden falls on the claimant to prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that a) he or she has the lawful possessory 
interest in the seized property; and b) the property was unlawfully seized or 
not subject to forfeiture.7  
 
(5) 
Downs’ claim is without merit.  The transcript of the hearing 
reflects that, after two controlled buys of illegal drugs at Downs’ residence, 
the Delaware State Police executed a search warrant at the residence.  
Among the items seized were a digital scale, approximately 19 grams of 
marijuana, 5.2 grams of crack cocaine, .2 grams of powdered cocaine, and 
several letters addressed to Downs reflecting that he lived at the residence.  
The police also seized approximately $1,800.00 from Downs’ person.  While 
Downs testified that the currency represented his gambling winnings, the 
serial numbers on several of the bills matched the serial numbers of bills 
                                                          
 
6DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4784 (1995); SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 71.3. 
7DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4784(j) (1) and (2) (1995). 
 
4
used by the police in the two previous controlled buys of illegal drugs.  The 
decision of the commissioner, as adopted by the Superior Court, was, thus, 
supported by the facts adduced at the hearing and the record reveals no error 
or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in adopting the 
findings of the commissioner and accepting the commissioner’s 
recommendation that Downs’ petition for return of property be denied.8 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland____ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice      
                                                          
 
8SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 132(a) (3).