Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the defendants were convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver after waiving their right to a jury trial. Following their conviction, the trial court ordered the return of $1,835.00 in cash seized during a police search, which the State challenged on appeal. The appeal centered on North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) 29-28-07, with the State arguing that the order affected a substantial right, despite not filing a required statement under NDCC 29-28-07(5). The court found that the absence of this statement did not invalidate the appeal. Under Rule 41(e), NDRCrimP, individuals can request the return of unlawfully seized property if they demonstrate lawful possession, but contraband may be retained regardless of the seizure's legality. The North Dakota statute explicitly subjects money to forfeiture, and the trial court was found to have erred by not requiring the defendants to prove that the cash was unrelated to drug sales. The State presented a prima facie case linking the funds to drug sales, which the defendants failed to rebut. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and mandated the forfeiture of the seized cash to the State.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appeal Validity under NDCC 29-28-07subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The State appealed the trial court's order to return seized cash, arguing that the appeal was valid under NDCC 29-28-07(4) despite not filing a statement under NDCC 29-28-07(5).
Reasoning: The State's appeal was based on the assertion that the order affected a substantial right, as outlined in North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) 29-28-07(4).
Burden of Proof in Forfeiture Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The State established a prima facie case that the money was from drug sales, requiring the Ronngrens to prove otherwise, which they did not accomplish.
Reasoning: The State established a prima facie case that the seized funds were from drug sales, placing the burden on the Ronngrens to prove otherwise, which they did not.
Forfeiture of Money under North Dakota Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court erred by not placing the burden on the Ronngrens to prove the seized money was unrelated to the offense, as North Dakota law specifically includes money as subject to forfeiture.
Reasoning: The North Dakota statute, unlike the Uniform Act, specifically includes money as subject to forfeiture.
Return of Property under Rule 41(e), NDRCrimPsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ronngrens were required to prove lawful possession and that the seizure was unlawful to secure the return of their property under Rule 41(e), but failed to do so.
Reasoning: Under Rule 41(e), NDRCrimP, a person affected by illegal seizure can request the return of their property, provided they can demonstrate lawful possession and that the seizure was unlawful.