Opinion ID: 901610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Trial under South Dakota Constitution

Text: [¶12.] As Baade concedes, the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution is not applicable to the states. However, the underlying analysis and rationale when deciding a right to a jury trial exists in civil forfeiture actions in federal court is helpful in our inquiry. The wording of the Seventh Amendment is similar to Article VI section 6 and this section of our constitution is understood to preserve the right to a jury where such right existed at common law just as [i]n Suits at common law . . . the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved under the Seventh Amendment. [7] Moreover, our civil forfeiture actions predicated upon SDCL 34-20B-70 are based on the federal forfeiture statutes. State v. One 1995 Silver Jeep Grand Cherokee and $497 in American Currency, 2006 SD 29, ¶5, 712 NW2d 646, 649. [¶13.] In One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held the Seventh Amendment preserved the right to a jury trial in civil forfeiture actions. 618 F2d at 454. The Seventh Circuit noted that as far back as 1823 the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that [i]n the trial of all cases of seizure, on land, the court sits as a court of common law. Id. at 459 (quoting The Sarah, 8 Wheat at 394, 5 LEd 644). The court of appeals found it an inescapable conclusion that prior to December 15, 1791 [8] statutory forfeitures on land were conducted as jury trials. Id. at 466. Thus, the Seventh Amendment preserved the right to a jury trial in forfeiture actions conducted in federal court. [¶14.] In addition to the federal courts, several states have considered whether their state constitutions require a jury trial in civil forfeiture actions. A survey of states indicates the courts found a jury trial is available in California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Jersey, Vermont and Okalahoma. [9] [¶15.] On the other hand, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and North Dakota have found a jury trial is not required in civil forfeitures. [10] [¶16.] In State v. $17,515.00 in Cash Money, the North Dakota Supreme Court found there is not a right to a jury trial in drug forfeiture cases. 670 NW2d 826, 828 (ND 2003). The North Dakota court explained that the 1887 Compiled Laws of Dakota Territory only provided for forfeiture actions upon convictions in cases of treason or when specifically provided by statute. Id. at 827. Moreover, the 1887 Compiled Laws also specified that [i]n this territory there is no common law in any case where the law is declared by the codes. Id. at 828. [¶17.] Due to these provisions, the North Dakota court found drug forfeitures were new statutory proceedings created after the constitution was adopted; consequently, there is no right to a jury trial because there was no available action in this state for forfeiture of proceeds from illegal drug transactions at the time the constitution was adopted. Id. Following the reasoning of the North Dakota Supreme Court, the State argues that Baade has no right to a jury trial because no actions for drug forfeitures existed when South Dakota ratified our Constitution in 1889. However, the analysis set forth in One 1976 Mercedes Benz 290S, is more persuasive. See 618 F2d at 456-69 and supra ¶¶10, 13. [¶18.] As demonstrated in other cases, the appropriate inquiry is not what type of forfeiture cases existed, but rather, whether forfeiture cases received a jury trial at the time the constitution was ratified. For example, in One 1990 Honda Accord, the New Jersey Supreme Court found drug forfeiture cases allowed for a jury trial even though forfeiture never existed at common law [in New Jersey] and remains a disfavored remedy. 712 A2d at 1150. The New Jersey court explained, Although forfeiture depends on a statute for its existence, it remains subject to common-law principles. When analyzing the right to trial by jury, the term common law refers to those principles of English law that evolved in the common-law courts such as the Court of the Exchequer, as opposed to those applied in the Admiralty, Chancery, or Ecclesiastical Courts. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, 37 Cal2d 283, 231 P2d 832, 836 (1951); In re Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet Van, 493 So2d 433, 435 (Fla 1986); Commonwealth v. One 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe, 530 Pa 523, 610 A2d 36, 39 (1992); see also William B. Stoebuck, Reception of English Common Law in the American Colonies, 10 Wm & Mary LRev 393 (1968) ( `Common law' refers to that body of governing principles, mainly substantive, expounded by the common-law courts of England in deciding cases before them.). Hence, the fact that common-law forfeiture did not become part of New Jersey common law does not predetermine whether statutory forfeiture was subject to trial by jury in the colonial common-law courts. The subject forfeiture, which involves the seizure on land of innocent property, is the type of case in which the owner would have been entitled to a jury trial in the common-law courts of colonial New Jersey. Id. at 1150-51 (emphasis added). [¶19.] Likewise, in Idaho Dep't of Law Enforcement v. Free, the Idaho Supreme Court found parties to civil forfeitures were entitled to a jury trial. 885 P2d 381, 386 (Idaho 1994). It noted that forfeitures existed at common law and it did not find any provision limiting the right to jury trial in forfeiture actions. Id. Importantly, the Idaho laws had a similar provision as our compiled laws, which provided that [n]o conviction of any person for crime works any forfeiture of any property, except in cases in which a forfeiture is expressly imposed by law; and all forfeitures to the people of this Territory, in the nature of a deodand, or where any person shall flee from justice, are abolished. Id. Compare with 1887 Compiled Laws of Dakota Territory § 6958. [11] The Idaho court explained that while some types of forfeitures were abolished, some types of forfeitures existed at the time Idaho's Constitution was ratified. Id. The court did not distinguish between different types of forfeitures, but instead found forfeitures were the type of case that entitles the parties to a jury trial. Id. [¶20.] We find this rationale more persuasive. In the North Dakota case of $17,550 in Cash Money, the question was construed too narrowly. At the time the South Dakota Constitution was ratified, forfeiture cases were actions at law, requiring a jury trial. [12] It is immaterial whether it is drug forfeiture, treason forfeiture, or some other statutorily created forfeiture. Therefore, Article VI, section 6 of South Dakota's Constitution entitles Baade to a jury trial in this civil forfeiture action. [¶21.] The State argues that a jury trial is a waste of limited judicial resources and would result in the confusion of issues by the jury. The right to a jury trial may be an inconvenience to the State when it seeks to forfeit allegedly misused property. However, mere inconvenience would be insufficient reason for denying a traditional and substantial constitutional right. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, 618 F2d at 468 (citing Curtis v. Loether, 415 US 189, 198, 94 SCt 1005, 1010, 39 LEd2d 260 (1974)) (additional citations omitted). [¶22.] SDCL 34-20B-88 is unconstitutional to the extent it does not provide for a jury trial in a forfeiture action. Reversed and remanded. [¶23.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur.