Summary 2007 WY 119

Summary of Decision issued July 31, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Doles v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 119

Docket Number: S-07-0002

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Nicholas H. Carter of Carter Law Office, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; and David L. Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the Appellant’s acquittal on related criminal charges acts collaterally to estop the State from pursuing forfeiture.

Facts/Discussion: This is an appeal from a district court’s order of forfeiture in which order the district court found certain items to be “drug paraphernalia” as defined by statute and ordered their forfeiture to the State of Wyoming.
The Court reviews de novo a district court’s application of or refusal to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel because it is a question of law. All three criminal charges against Appellant were based on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1056. Coffey v. United States is the seminal case in this area of law. While not relying directly upon the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel, the United States Supreme Court declared that the acquittals in the criminal case barred the government from pursuing civil forfeiture. Appellant contended that the holding of Coffey endured citing the following cases: Lowther v. United States, United States v. One 1956 Ford Fairlane Tudor Sedan; Bramble v. Kleindienst; United States v. 86.9 Cases; and United States v. One De Soto Sedan. The Wyoming case in which collateral estoppel was applied to forfeiture proceedings after a criminal action is State v. Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Six Dollars & No Cents in United States Currency. The Court carefully limited its opinion as to the extent of the effect of collateral estoppel. The Court held the State was barred from relitigating the issue of whether the law enforcement officers had probable cause at the time of the seizure and arrest but that the State was not barred from attempting to prove, under another subsection of the forfeiture statute that the State Board of Pharmacy or the Attorney General otherwise had probable cause to believe that the money was traceable to violations of the controlled substances act. Thus the case did not involve the direct issue of the effect of an acquittal upon a forfeiture action.
Coffey has been overruled. The Supreme Court determined that Coffey did not apply to estop the government from pursuing a tax deficiency after an acquittal on related criminal charges because the recovery action required a different burden of proof. The Court stated they accepted and adopted the reasoning of 89 Firearms, One Lot Emerald and Helvering where a general verdict of not guilty in a criminal case does not answer the same question asked in a civil forfeiture action under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1049. Because the jury returned a general verdict of not guilty on the three charges in the instant case, the Court does not know what element of the crimes it found unproven beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, they do not know whether the jury determined that the seized items were not drug paraphernalia.

Holding: The district court correctly determined that the acquittal of the Appellant in the criminal case that preceded the forfeiture proceeding did not collaterally estop the State from pursuing forfeiture.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2tgxz5 .