Little v. State

The appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were innocent owners of a pick-up truck and cell phone, which police seized in conjunction with their son's sale of marijuana to a police informant.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a bench trial, Eual M. Little’s truck and Dorothy Little’s cellular telephone were forfeited to the State on the ground that their son used the truck and cellular phone while engaging in the sale of marijuana. Eual and Dorothy Little appeal the forfeiture, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to find that they were innocent owners of the property.1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. The evidence shows that on May 9, 2003, the Littles’ son, Matthew, sold a quantity of marijuana to a confidential police informant. Matthew used Dorothy’s cellular telephone to arrange the sale and transported the marijuana in Eual’s 1991 Mazda pickup truck. Immediately following the drug sale, Matthew was arrested, and the truck and cellular phone were seized. Matthew eventually pled guilty to charges relating to the marijuana sale, and the State filed a complaint pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-49 seeking forfeiture of the truck and the cellular phone.

At the forfeiture hearing, the State presented evidence that Matthew had been arrested two years earlier for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and had, in fact, used Eual’s truck during the commission of that crime. The State also presented evidence that both parents were aware of the arrest and that following Matthew’s previous arrest, Eual was warned that his truck could be subject to forfeiture if his son was again caught using it while engaging in drug sales. Both Eual and Dorothy testified that they were not aware that their son was again selling marijuana and further testified that although his use of the cellular phone was not really restricted, his use of the truck was loosely restricted. In addition, Matthew also testified that his parents were unaware that he had used their property to arrange a marijuana sale.

Little v. State

The appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were innocent owners of a pick-up truck and cell phone, which police seized in conjunction with their son's sale of marijuana to a police informant.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report