IN RE FORFEITURE OF ONE 1978 CHEVROLET VAN V.I.N. CGD 1584167858, APPROXIMATELY $4,478.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, AND ONE .45 CALIBER AUTOMATIC STAR HANDGUN, SERIAL NO. 1481675
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this forfeiture proceeding under Florida law, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a property owner has a constitutional right to a jury trial in forfeiture cases under Article I, Section 22 of the Florida Constitution. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the jury trial request and remanded for a new trial.
The court held that the property owner was entitled to a jury trial in the forfeiture proceeding. Forfeiture proceedings were known to the common law with jury trial rights, and Article I, Section 22 of the Florida Constitution provides this right in forfeiture proceedings under Chapter 932, Florida Statutes.
[1] A property owner is entitled to a jury trial in forfeiture proceedings under Chapter 932, Florida Statutes.
[2] The right to a jury trial in forfeiture proceedings is derived from common law practices.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The analysis in One 1976 Mercedes of the existence of forfeiture proceedings at common law with the right to jury trial supports the contention that article I, section 22, of the Florida Constitution entitles one to a jury trial in forfeiture proceedings under Chapter 932, Florida Statutes.”
Establishes the court's primary holding that forfeiture proceedings at common law with jury trial rights support a constitutional right to jury trial in Florida forfeiture cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought forfeiture of a 1978 Chevrolet van, approximately $4,478 in U.S. currency, and a .45 caliber handgun. The property owner requeste…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forfeiture Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
In this forfeiture proceeding filed pursuant to Chapter 932, Florida Statutes (1983), the property owner requested a jury trial, which the trial court denied. Since we hold that action of the trial court was error, we need not treat the merits of the order declaring forfeiture. The question of the right to trial by jury in forfeiture proceedings has been treated in detail in an excellent opinion in United States v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, 618 F. 2d 453 (7th Cir.1980). Although that case involves an application of the seventh amendment to the federal constitution, which amendment is not binding upon the states, federal decisions construing that amendment are persuasive in construing similar state constitutional provisions. Dudley v. Harrison, McCready & Company, 127 Fla. 687, 173 So. 820 (1937). The analysis in One 1976 Mercedes of the existence of forfeiture proceedings at common law with the right to jury trial supports the contention that article I, section 22, of the Florida Constitution entitles one to a jury trial in forfeiture proceedings under Chapter 932, Florida Statutes. The question is not whether this specific act existed at that time, but whether forfeiture proceedings were known to the common law. It is clear they were, and that jury trials were allowed in those proceedings. Therefore, upon authority of One 1976 Mercedes Benz we hold that appellant was entitled to a jury trial, recognizing that in so holding we are in conflict with a contrary holding of the First District Court of Appeal in Smith v. Hindery, 454 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order appealed from and remand the cause to the trial court for the purpose of affording appellant a jury trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet VAN VIN: CGD1584167858, 493 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1986)…EHRLICH, Justice. We have for review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, In re Forfeiture of One 1978 Chevrolet Van, 467 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), which directly and expressly conflicts with a decision of another district court, Smith v. Hindery, 454 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), on the question of whether there is a right to a jury trial under article I, section 22 of t…
-
In re the Forfeiture OF ONE 1978 Chevrolet Corvette V.I.N. 1Z87L85401439, 491 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…before the court a final order of forfeiture was again entered, from which Hall appeals. One of the issues raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s demand for a jury trial. In In re Forfeiture of One 1978 Chevrolet Van, 467 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), this court held that a property owner, upon timely request, is entitled to a jury trial in a forfeiture proceeding, though recognizing a conflict with Smith v. Hindery, 454 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This court’s decision i…
Authorities Cited
- Dudley v. Harrison, 127 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1937)
- United States v. ONE 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, 618 F.2d 453 (7th Cir. 1980)
- Wayne and Vivian Smith v. L.J. "Lu" Hindery, 454 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)