Opinion ID: 1940661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sua Sponte Instruction Unnecessary

Text: When Morgan was arrested on July 11, 2007, the Dover Police seized $235 from his person. When the police executed a search warrant at the residence Morgan shared with Pharr on the evening of July 11, the authorities seized additional cash totaling $616 from the bedroom of the home. Near the end of the first day of Morgan's Superior Court jury trial, the prosecutor asked the chief investigating officer, Pires of the Dover Police Department, if he had completed any paperwork with the defendant concerning the $235 the police seized from Morgan's person. Pires responded: Anytime you seize money of anybody's in a drug-related case, we have a notification of forfeiture form that we have them sign indicating that this money was taken from you or whatever it may beit could be money or a vehiclebut that it was taken from you. And the person has the opportunity to claim they are or are not the owner of the property. Pires explained that there were police forfeiture forms for both the $235 seized from Morgan's person and the money that was seized from the residence. Pires testified that Morgan signed the forfeiture forms and claimed ownership of the money. Pires also testified that the denominations of cash seized in the investigation were consistent with drug dealing. If you notice, there's a lot of $20 amounts in there which, commonly, crack cocaine is sold in $20 increments. Referring to photographs of the money seized in this case, Pires added: It's very common for drug dealers to [have] large quantities of cash on hand just to keep the business going. When trial resumed the following morning of the second day of trial, Pires continued his direct examination testimony about two property forfeiture forms that he had filled out with the defendant. At this point, defense counsel objected to admission into evidence of the police property forfeiture forms because the accused had invoked his Miranda rights and refused to give a statement prior to signing the forfeiture forms. The trial judge sustained the defense objection. There was no further defense trial application concerning this subject. Morgan argues for the first time on this direct appeal that the trial judge should sua sponte have given some type of curative instruction. Since Morgan made no request at trial for a curative instruction, this claim has been waived and may now only be reviewed on appeal for plain error. [12] To constitute plain error, the error must affect substantial rights, generally meaning that it must have affected the outcome of the trial. [13] In demonstrating that a waived error is prejudicial, the burden of persuasion is on the defendant. [14] Given the other substantial trial evidence of Morgan's guilt, the fact that the jury also heard that Morgan had signed two forfeiture forms, claiming ownership of the $235 seized from his person and the $616 cash found in his joint residence, did not reasonably affect the outcome of the trial. The record reflects that police found a digital scale and a piece of crack cocaine in the vehicle where Morgan was riding as a passenger, as well as another scale, drug sale paraphernalia, and numerous contraband drugs in the bedroom Morgan shared with Pharr. Pharr told police that Morgan had been selling drugs for five or six months. In her trial testimony, Pharr denied that the digital scale, drug sale paraphernalia, or the ecstasy, cocaine or heroin found by police in her home belonged to her. This other independent trial evidence of Morgan's guilt was sufficient to convict him regardless of whether the jury heard that Morgan had signed two forfeiture forms asserting ownership of cash seized by the police. Since defense counsel did not request any curative jury instruction after making an evidentiary objection, the trial judge was not required to second guess that defense strategy. Under these circumstances, the record reflects that the trial judge acted appropriately, and Morgan can demonstrate no plain error. Accordingly, we hold that Morgan has not sustained his burden of persuasion in demonstrating plain error because the trial judge did not sua sponte give a jury curative instruction after sustaining the defense objection to the admission of two police property forfeiture forms.