Court Opinion

ID: 9702781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:23:27.049332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:41.542191
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize the following. The majority holds that George Reitz received, in effect, a determination by the jury of whether the forfeiture of the property constituted an excessive fine. With that conclusion, I agree. I caution though that the portion of the jury instruction which the majority quotes at footnote 6 of the slip opinion does not adequately convey the relationship which is required between the property and the commission of the crime so as to render the property forfeit and so as to render the forfeiture non-excessive. The property must be significantly used in the commission of the crime. In re King Properties, 535 Pa. 321, 331, 635 A.2d 128, 133 (1993). Accordingly, the jury instruction ought to have stated:
You will be called upon to consider the following question: Are you satisfied by a fair preponderance of the evidence that George Reitz, Jr. significantly used the farm including the structures to facilitate any violation of the drug act.
Moreover, “significantly” should be defined as requiring a pattern of similar use of the property, in other words, a repeated use of the property to facilitate the violation of the law. “Otherwise significant property interests might become forfeit based on the unusual and unaccustomed incident.” In re King Properties, at 331, 635 A.2d at 133.1

. It does not appear in his brief to this court that Mr. Reitz challenged this particular jury instruction. Furthermore, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the forfeited property was significantly used to facilitate violations of the Drug Act.