Opinion ID: 2575863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: the state's evidentiary material is sufficient to establish prima facie proof of the requisite statutory connection of the seized money to the forfeitable substances

Text: ¶ 26 The State's claim to seized money rests on the statutory presumption that subjects to forfeiture [a]ll moneys, coin and currency found in close proximity to any amount of forfeitable substances. [46] The proof to be offered must be by a preponderance of the evidence. [47] Once this onus is met the burden shifts to the claimant to rebut the statutory presumption. [48] ¶ 27 The State's evidentiary materialthe police officer's affidavit and the police department's laboratory analysis of the seized substancesestablishes prima facie the requisite statutory connection that provides support for forfeiture. The baggies that were retrieved from Mitchell, as well as the bag which he dropped during the police chase, contained 31.85 grams of crack cocaine (base), more than six times the amount needed to support a trafficking charge. [49] The quantum of the seized forfeitable substances found in close proximity to the money ($1,267.00) was amply sufficient proof to shift to Mitchell the burden to show by counter-affidavit circumstances sufficient to raise a disputed issue of fact. Mitchell accepted as true all the facts proffered by the State's affidavit when he chose not to counter that affidavit's allegations by evidentiary material of his own. [50] ¶ 28 On this record, we hence hold the trial court correctly entered summary judgment for the State.