Court Opinion

ID: 9533527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:32:29.094462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:04.912289
License: Public Domain

Alexander, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority that Cole’s conviction should be affirmed. I do so because the trial court found that the property that was forfeited in the forfeiture proceeding to which Cole was a party was proceeds of drug trafficking. The forfeiture, therefore, cannot be considered punishment. In that regard, I find myself in accord with the many decisions cited by the majority to the effect that it is not punishment to take something away from a claimant which he or she never legitimately acquired.
Insofar as State v. Szymanowski is concerned, I do not disagree with the majority’s decision that we should remand to the trial court for a determination as to the nature of the property forfeited. I write separately, however, because I would have us go further and direct the trial court to vacate Szymanowski’s conviction and dismiss the underlying charges, in the event it concludes on remand that the forfeited property was not proceeds of drug trafficking. I am so inclined because I am satisfied that a conviction on criminal charges that follows a forfeiture action constitutes a second punishment for the same offense. In that respect, I agree with the view expressed by Justice Johnson in his dissent that the forfeiture of Szymanowski’s property, if not shown to be proceeds of criminal activity, was punishment. A separate criminal proceeding following the forfeiture proceeding would, therefore, be subsequent punishment and would run afoul of the double jeopardy provisions of the federal and state constitutions. We should so hold.
Durham, C.J., and Madsen, J., concur with Alexander, J.