Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Murphy v. State

Murphy v. State

475 S.E.2d 907, 267 Ga. 120, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3382, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 712
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 23, 1996·No. S96G0588·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinions

Hines, Justice.

We granted certiorari to consider whether a forfeiture proceeding under OCGA § 16-13-49 constitutes punishment for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis under the Federal Constitution.1 We conclude that it does not.

Civil forfeitures generally do not constitute punishment under [121] the Double Jeopardy Clause. The federal test to be applied in assessing a forfeiture statute is two-fold. The first inquiry is whether the proceeding is intended to be criminal or civil. The second is whether, by clearest proof, the proceeding is so punitive in fact that it may not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature despite the intent that it be so. United States v. Ursery, 518 U. S. _ (116 SC 2135, 135 LE2d 549) (1996). It is plain that a forfeiture proceeding under OCGA § 16-13-49 is intended to be a civil action. See OCGA § 16-13-49 (b) (3), (o) (3), (p) (4), (v), (w); see also Thorp v. State of Ga., 264 Ga. 712 (450 SE2d 416) (1994); State of Ga. v. Alford, 264 Ga. 243, 244 (2) (444 SE2d 76) (1994). While it is true that the statute has punitive aspects, its purposes are remedial by its express terms. OCGA §. 16-13-49 (z). Property subject to forfeiture under the Code section is that which is declared to be contraband, including property or its proceeds used or intended for use to facilitate violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, monies found in close proximity to such property, and weapons used to facilitate felony violations of narcotics laws. OCGA § 16-13-49 (d). The statute serves the nonpunitive goals, among others, of rendering illegal behavior unprofitable, ensuring that persons do not profit from their illegal acts, and removing from circulation forbidden merchandise and firearms unlawfully used or intended for illegal use. Ursery, 518 U. S. at _ (slip op. at 12). The forfeiture proceeding under the statute is legitimately a civil sanction and does not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.2

Decided September 23, 1996.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Murphy v. State, 475 S.E.2d 907, 267 Ga. 120, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3382, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 712 (Ga. 1996).

475 S.E.2d 907 (Murphy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

STATE OF GEORGIA, Ex Rel TIMOTHY G. VAUGHN D. A., OCONEE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT v. JAMES R. BROPHY, JR., A/K/A JIM BROPHY
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
Rudolph Orange v. State of Georgia
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013
Orange v. State
736 S.E.2d 477 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)
Cisco v. State
680 S.E.2d 831 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2009)
Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson
555 S.E.2d 459 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
Dorsey v. State
554 S.E.2d 278 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Serchion v. State
496 S.E.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Cuellar v. State
496 S.E.2d 282 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Bettis v. State of Georgia
491 S.E.2d 155 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Rojas v. State
487 S.E.2d 455 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Hall v. State
486 S.E.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
In the Interest of B. G.
484 S.E.2d 293 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Manley v. State
482 S.E.2d 416 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Carrasquillo v. State
479 S.E.2d 202 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Sutton v. State
478 S.E.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Battista v. State
477 S.E.2d 665 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Murphy v. State
475 S.E.2d 907 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)