OCR Text |
Show MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1974 In The Supreme Court of The noted that Section U.C.A. 1953, which provides for the penalties for the possession of marijuana, further provides in subsection 58-37-- 58-37-8- (8): do tive penalty or sanction authorized by law. The important proposition to be noted on this appeal Is that the reason only given by the trial court for his refusal to declare the forfeiture of the automobile was that he thought that its value (the only evidence conwas value statement had paid $10, 000 for it) was that he Price's cerning so disproportionate to the penalty for the offense of possession of marijuana that the forfeiture should not be enforced. In that connection he stated: "This court does not believe that the legislature intended such a harsh and drastic result," i.e., the forfeiture. trial judge gives rise to The proposition stated by the With respect to the California experience referred to in the main opinion, this should be noted: their statute was not declared unconstitutional. It was repealed by their legislature, after a study by the Commission on State Government, and apparently largely because of economic considerations. I appreciate that the reason is quite immaterial here. But the experience itself is in conformity with the idea herein advocated: that whatever the problem may be, it should be dealt with legislatively rather than judicially. two thoughts: judge just couldn't believe the legislature meant what it so clearly said in the statutes. First, that the , order Second, that if a person is caught transporting drugs in an old beat-u- p inexpensive car, it is subject to forfeiture. But if he is more prosperous in his traffic, and has a fine new expensive car, the law should not deign to forfeit it. added. In accordance with what I have said above, it is my judgment that the of forfeiture should be entered as prescribed by law. (All emphasis - ) Ellett, Justice, concurs in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Crockett. The trial judge was patently right when he said "I can make a reasonable inference. " That is, that the rest of the substance was also marijuana. It is totally inconceivable to me that the officer could pick up one ounce of substance, all of which had the same appearance, which would turn out to be marijuana, and the rest of it be something else. I therefore say with complete assurance that the only reasonable inference was that the entire quantity was marijuana. I acid, however, that the issue of forfeiture under the statute, depends only upon the identification of some substantial and identifiable amount of marijuana,, and not upon any particular quantity thereof. It is to be remembered that the forfeiture of property declared by law is not the same as imposing a sentence for a crime, with respect to which the trial court does have some discretion in modifying or suspending the sentence. The declaration of forfeiture of property under circumstances so justifying is the mandate of the people, speaking through their legislature. When such a mandate is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms, it is the duty of the court to abide thereby and carry out its Zmandate, thus avoiding judicial intrusions into the legislative prerogative. As to the grant of general power to the courts to suspend sentences or grant U.C.A. 1953. probation in criminal cases see Sec. 2. Cases sustaining the principle of forfeiture as a means of law enforcement are numerous. E.g., for similar cases of forfeiture see Associated Investment Company v. United States, 220 F. 2d 885 (5th Cir. 1955), two smoked marijuana cigarettes in the vehicle resulted in forfeiture; General Finance Corporation of Florida South v. United States, 333 F. 2d 681 (5th Cir. 1964); State v. Meyers, 328 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. Civ. App. 1959); Carmichael Finance Company v. State, 475 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971); Prince George's County v. One (1) 1969 Opel, etal. , 267 Md.491, 298 A. 2d 168; State v. One 1967 Ford Mustang, 266 Md. 275, 292 A. 2d 64. See discussion in the latter case wherein the Maryland Court of Appeals said, inter alia, that the refusal to declare the forfeiture would be comparable to refusal to enter a large judgment against a debtor because it would place a great burden upon the defendant. 3. U.S. , 94 S.Ct. 2080 (1974). 4. Puerto Rico Laws Ann. Tit. "24, Section 2512(a)(4), which has the same wording of the present Utah Statute, Section U.C.A. 1953, but has less exemptions. 5. California Statutes 1967, Ch.280, Sec. 3, p. 1438. 1. 77-35-- ; 61j$ 253 CARL H POPPINGS 25U ERNEST A LYON $860 255 CPI SYSTEMS $621 $937 $W95 112 FA6RI GLAS INC $1719 136 ENGINEERED STRUCTURES $1371 809 MICHAEL E BUTLER $2039 810 ROBERT MITCHELL ETUX $281(6 811 GEORGE A HICK $1.175 812 BARBARA B HATCH $81A 813 JEROME E D0BECKI ETUX $5950 8lU GEORGE E PETTY $902 815 CLYDE K YEATES $611 816 CLYDE FERGUSON ETUX $l8ll 817 FLEET SERVICE $10l3 818 TULIN GREEN INV $1509 616 207 INTERNATIONAL SILVER CORP 617 033 $135,029 P WALLACE CONCRETE H0RNE 153 NICK N NIK0LS H0RNE DBA $30$ TOWN HOSE ERNEST . WALDR0UP LEMAR WALDR0UP ERECTION $15,565 CONSTRUCTORS $1726 All Tax Liens are Payable to the Department of the United States Treasury NOTE: Suits City Court 562 Standard Opitacal Co. YS REUBEN PHYLLIS F Robinson Medical Mart vsvs SUSAN PEARCE I 11. 62 $50.00 56355 Robinson Medical Mart vs MRS. FRANKLIN PRIEST $94.16 $25.00 56356 Robinsons Medical Marl vs BOYD M. SIMPSON 122.96 $25.00 56357 Schefskis Inc vs LEON R. SKETA $372.54 56354 56358 56359 56360 $95.00 $50.00 56363 56 364 56365 Prestige Optics vs SEIGER DBA SKIERS SALT LAKE RICHARD 94.16 56351 Robinson 'Medical Mart vs ALFONSO J. MURAN0 $24.94 125.00 56352 Robinsons Medical Marl V vs RICHARD G. C0NLET 125.31 125.00 56329 56321 AND $174. 60 LUJAN 0SELER 56306 Alphagraphtes can copy and collate at 58 per copy., vs GUNDERS0N 56325 E. $636.99 224 South 1300 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 2 Telephone 582-828- 56326 NAY ySsff Burke ALBERT GOMEZ 56327 56328 vs $285. 8l SPEEDY STIRRUP $232;13 $896.71 56312 Alzora C. Paros vs TED BUZIS AND KAREN BUZIS $506.64 56313 Standard Builders vs D & D WASTE $77.37 63 56314 . International Data Specialties vs METAL $109.80 Salt Salt vs Lake City $100.36 56316 Lake MARGARET vs 0RNEALS GEORGE MECHAM $450.00 56318 56319 56295 vi vs RYAN AND JIM Roy C Thorell LAMPH DMD of Utah 56277 J. 56276 56300 ICN Toiletries Inc AND CLARK 56332 56333 56334 56336 56337 56338 $ $431.-9- 5 $137.97 Chris abd Dicks vs J LIVING MOBILE 56339 . 56340 56341 J235.99 State Farm Mutual Autom&bile Insuranc: e Co. vs FREDA SCHWAB EDWARD Buk HOMES $490.72 Dennis Mark Rubeck and Debra Lee Ruebeck $3 GARY COOK AND BO JOHN DOE vs STANLEY A BARA3AS AND LAN BAR ABAS CLYDE DUNKLEY AND H. DAVE CRANI, PAUL KARSHARA LORI HOPF AN JEFF GREEN DBA EASY ROY C DAVIS and Trust C0. Vesteran Bonded Coll. LORELEI DUNKLEY HANSEN vs Western Bonded Collectii Ino vs JAMES PIERCE AM BEVERLY PIERCE $213.84 vs State of Utah vs $245.00 56281 Tracy Collisn Transmissions JIMMY KEMP AND MRS JIMMY KEMP $156.75 $285.33 Le AAMCO vs R. KAY $805.00 56285 State of Utah vs KARMA L. HiNDRY 56282 vs V. E. V. E. $116.98 vs $232.00 State of Utah vs Kelly Cp. ANDERSEN AND COMPANY vs CRUZ KATCHER PAUL HULTHREEN ANDERSON DBA JAMES State of Utah $25.00 $279.65 56286 56283 MACE VS R BREEZE $775.00 Newspaper Agency Corp. vs Betty McArthur $326.79 56288 State of Utah vs JAMES LOTT $804.20 56287 State of Utha va BONNIE KENNEY $556.26 State of Utah JEAN AND Irent $200.00 56325 State of Utah LAMDNT NORMAN State of Utah vs LESI IE J MCNEIL $324.00 Progressive Music SEX CLARK BA! 357.78 56293 Csemcical Bank G. vs vs LARRY TEURGOOD $490.00 $200.00 vs 56301 Jay Hickenlooper WILLAIM B. RUSSELL MARVIN RUSSELL lBA PAUL Hicken M. PIERCE SVacate vs PRODUCTS $974.10 56284 'Yard JAY PIERCE AKS GLADYS 3ETTY JEAN GUTHRIE AKA BETTY JEAN HJREX0 56286 Bank CHA-tLEN- $310.44 56292 Celanese Coatings and Speciatties vs AL UIGLEY $106.07 56291 State of Utah vs 56289 First Security of Utah ' vs J2F7ERY P. JEacOP AND JESSOP $356.74 Commerick Division vs SPORTBLAY INC 56290 vs M. JOHNSON AND PAMELA JOHNSON $307.94 O D WILLIAMS $vacate First Security Bank RICHARD 56278 ROGER ADVANCED BEAUTY BARBER SUPPLY 56293 F. $797.01 $361.46 AND Bank 3ILDA NIC HOLES NICKOLEa $180.34 Hask vs Of Utah vs Eledtrofilm Inc PATNTHER LAkSEN First Security W. 56279 DIRECT0RIE CLOTHING FOOTHILL STARS AND BARS A $994.68 $200.00 AKA Wallows and Creekeide LTD PIN Uarco Inc f k vs Utah" LARS EN DOROTHY ADAMS $182.00 tfity vs of PLANT D0XEY AND STEVEN HARDING DBA THE WHEELER 1146.42 56317 Ralph D. Crockett $351.07 Utah Power and Light Co. vs MAC B. SMITH DBA BJ CONSTRUCTION CO. vs Utah Power and Light Co. vs SAFTI BRAKE SERVICE 56296 vs $397. 1C 563IO National Department Store vs GERRY HARWARI $44. 94 56311 Michael D. Privett vs BERNHARD STRAHL DBA 3-n- LAWRENCE T. TORRES AND MRS. LAWRENCE TORRES $567.40 $91.45 PEARL S LAUGHTER 56315 Jr. vs Freight Outlet SALES INC $789.51 $86.00 BRADFORD IDA EILEENE Ryder C. Wiring MARY 364-845- 56309 $574.10 $150.00 $200.00 28 West 1st South Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 1 Telephone HOWARD Bank Bank vs LYDIN R. $219.37 J.W. Bre.er Tire Co.. JOHN Commercial Collection Co. vs LARRY KAY 5230 First Secutity ' VAUL $375.42 $175. '0 Farmers State Branch of Tra - Collins ve vs $78.28 39.00 Progressive Miislr 9HS0N ELE0N 56294 MRS. AND DON CD. Bronner Laird Gog?ins 56308 CD. Bronner vs of 56298 Method Finance vs New ? AND 56307 $45.50 First Security RON NA $150.00 Melvin Wright and Scott Wright vs ' KAREN JONES vs vb JOHNSON AND MRS LARRY KAY JOHNSON 369.40 vs CAROLE ANN REA $600.00 Sdry E. Hill vs DAVID KR0U3H $212.38 $100;00 Rath A. Christenson vs E. D. SAWYER $236.67 $100.00 Drs. Evans, Evans and avans inc vs .mUSHN KELLER $90.57 Drs. Evans, Evans WALKER 56324 56299 Financial NAtionwide CRAIG GORDON CRAI3 AKA First Security MARK NA Robinsons Medical Mart vs LEN0RE PICERN0 $78.32 $50.00 GO-- L WALKER AND LARAINE LEGAL BRIEFS pttHIIrapirics 56305 - JUSTICE Ensign 'Federal Credit Union vs LARRY BR0CKM MAN $321.49 $125.00 NANCY STEWART DOS $765.09 S,tste of Utah of Overnight Service 56304 . and Evans vs KIME KINIKINI $63.79 56322 Drs. Evans, Evans and Evans vs MIDREDE 56323 XEROXED & PRINTED 56302 vs DONALD AND JACQUELINE D0WLIN3 AND EVELINE L. VANDER ME IDE AKA EVELINE TABOR $367.50 State of $307571- $94.87 56343 56331 . ROBERTA ROBERTA RICHARD ANDERSON DBA PLASTICS DEVELOPMENT CO. $315.00 Corp. Utah vs Roger Monia $929.40 56362 State of Utah vs 56461 vs L0F3REN 56303 Harnoby Floors Inc. DAN BUTCHER VIOLET BUTCHER Bonneville Credit Corp. Marta B. Nuffer vs KEVIN VIEWE3 $283.52 vs U.S. Communities Management Corp. - vs JEWEL HEFNER $26?. 00 $90.00 . E. vs - 56330- HORTON DBA H0RT0N MUSIC COMPANY $835.35 RAYMOND AND RAYMOND Struve Distributing MAX Company ' 155 TRI CITY 56 329 56354 ' ATHLETIC CLUB $5025 151' Robinsons Medical Marl vs MART JEAN ORTEGA 136.01 $25.00 56353 141 BUILDERS ELECTRICAL SER MINT 17, itv Court Tax Liens 61t5 State of Utah The principle of forfeiture of the means of transportation as a method of law enforcement and control of illicit traffic in contraband was discussed and reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Calero-Tolev. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. 3 That principle was reaffirmed in a situation greatly more exaggerated than the instant one. After officers had discovered marijuana abord, the yacht was seized and forfeited pursuant to Puerto Rican statutes. The Supreme Court rejected the attack upon the procedure and the statutes; and particularly rejected the contention of deprivation of property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is noteworthy that our Utah statute is more fair than the one under attack in the Calero-Toled- o case, in that under our statute the owner is given the opportunity to show his innocence and his interest will be protected. 8, Any penalty imposed for violation of this section shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any civil or administra- N PAGE SEVENTEEN INTERMOUNTAIN COMMERCIAL RECORD SCHHARD $104.00 Standard Optical Co. vs ROY L BAILEY AND HELEN BAILEY $50.00 $74.25 AM |