The state filed a complaint pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-49 seeking forfeiture of six motor vehicles allegedly discovered in close proximity to marijuana. Three of the vehicles went unclaimed and were forfeited, but Veronica Davis filed an answer claiming a 1986 Mercedes Benz and a 1996 Cadillac, and Gary Martin filed an answer claiming a 1997 Freightliner. After a bench trial, the court ordered that the Cadillac be forfeited, but that the Mercedes Benz not be forfeited because Davis is an innocent owner of it and that the Freightliner not be forfeited because Martin is an innocent owner of it. The state appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding both Davis and Martin to be innocent owners of the respective vehicles. Relying on the pleadings, briefs and trial testimony, the trial court found that undercover agents for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation bought two pounds of marijuana from Gerald Davis at the home he shares with his wife, Veronica Davis. The Mercedes Benz, Cadillac and Freightliner were all parked on the Davis property at the time of the undercover drug buy. Three days later, the GBI bought another 40 pounds of marijuana from Gerald Davis at his father’s house. The GBI subsequently executed a search warrant at the Gerald and Veronica Davis’ home, in which they found digital scales, individual packages of marijuana, a pistol and money. The Mercedes Benz, Cadillac and Freightliner were all parked on the Davis property during the search.
Once the state has presented a prima facie case for forfeiture, the claimant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is an innocent owner of the property in question.1 OCGA § 16-13-49 e sets forth the elements for proving that one is an innocent owner.2 Under OCGA § 16-13-49 e 1, a property interest shall not be subject to forfeiture if the interest holder establishes that he:A Is not legally accountable for the conduct giving rise to its forfeiture, did not consent to it, and did not know and could not reasonably have known of the conduct or that it was likely to occur;B Had not acquired and did not stand to acquire substantial proceeds from the conduct giving rise to its forfeiture . . . ;C With respect to conveyances for transportation only, did not hold the property jointly, in common, or in community with a person whose conduct gave rise to its forfeiture;D Does not hold the property for the benefit of or as nominee for any person whose conduct gave rise to its forfeiture . . . ; andE Acquired the interest . . . before the completion of the conduct giving rise to its forfeiture. . . .3In the instant case, the trial court found that the state had made a prima facie case for forfeiture of all three vehicles. However, the court further found that Veronica Davis had met her burden of establishing that she is an innocent owner of the Mercedes Benz because she had purchased the vehicle with her own money and there is no evidence that her husband had ever driven it. The trial court also found that Martin had met his burden of establishing himself as an innocent owner of the Freightliner because he had acquired the vehicle as a bona fide purchaser.
