State of Maine v. Wood

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedNovember 13, 2003
DocketKENcr-00-391
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Wood (State of Maine v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Wood, (Me. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF MAINE CRIMINAL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. Soke NO Cae 391 STATE OF MAINE : . ORDER SHANE WOOD, DONALD LG LAW Lee Defendant

DEC 12 2003

Before the court is an ancillary information brought as count VII of the indictment in which the State is seeking criminal forfeiture of 27 firearms and count V of the indictment seeking forfeiture of $5,442, both proceedings brought under. 15 M.R.S.A. § 5826, the criminal forfeiture statute. In conjunction therewith, there has been filed with the court four ancillary third-party requests for hearing, each alleging a legal right, title or interest in certain items subject to forfeiture.

Wife of the defendant, Rebecca Wood, seeks to avoid the forfeiture of property to which she claims a right, to wit:

(A) A Thompson semi-automatic 1927 45 caliber rife;

(B) AnSWD M-11 9 mm (XX-XXXXXXX);

(C) Remington model 740 .270 rifle (B8410567);

(D) Remington 700 7-mm rifle (T6211089);

(E) Ruger .22 pistol (6447667); and

(F) | Waffenbrik Mauser pistol (848365).

Rebecca Wood also claims $4,500 of the cash seized as part of the execution of the search warrant in this matter.

Rebecca Wood seeks to avoid the forfeiture on behalf of her son, Alex Wood, for

certain firearms she claims is the property of the 12-year-old son, to wit: (A) Rogue Chipmunk .22 rifle;

(B) Ruger 10-22 .22 rifle (23760773);

(C) Marlin model 60 .22 rifle (04131983); and

(D) FM .410 gauge shotgun (B00003405).

Rebecca Wood also claims on behalf of her 9-year-old son Ryan Wood to defeat forfeiture of firearms she believes belong to her son, to wit:

(A) Rogue Chipmunk .22 rifle;

(B) Ruger 10-22 .22 rifle (24521103); and

(C) Marlin model 60 .22 rifle (17349141).

Finally, Elizabeth Myron, mother of the defendant, claims ownership in firearms found in the possession of the defendant, to wit:

(A) IJ.A & C Luger .22 handgun (M98970);

(B) Reising Arms Co. .22 pistol (2888);

(C) Deutsch Werve rifle (63340) Jactually a pistol];

(D) Crossman Mack! .22 caliber; and

(E) Rohm RG 10.22 revolver (1163262).

Title 15 M.R.S.A. § 5821 provides certain property subject to forfeiture to the State as a result of a conviction for a crime including scheduled drugs, materials related to scheduled drugs, firearms and other property. The purpose of the forfeiture is provided in 15 M.R.S.A. § 5821(3) in describing property which “is used or intended for use to defend, protect, guard or secure any property or item described in subsection 1 or 2.” Subsection 1 or 2 describes scheduled drugs and materials related to scheduled drugs. Title 15 M.R.S.A. § 5821(6) provides for money instruments which include money and other instruments and things of value “furnished or intended to be

furnished by any person in exchange for a scheduled drug in violation of” the specified criminal law. The proceeding before the court resulted from an information added to a criminal indictment calling for a criminal forfeiture under 15 M.R.S.A. § 5826. Subsection 5(A) of that statute calls for a person other than the defendant to petition the court for hearing to determine their legal interest in property subject to the forfeiture.

Relevant language provides:

The court shall issue or amend a final order of forfeiture in accordance

with its determination if, after the hearing, the court determines that the

petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that:

A. _ The petitioner has a legal right, title or interest in the property and

the right, title or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or

in part because the right, title or interest was vested in the petitioner

rather than in any defendant or was superior to any right, title or interest

to the exclusion of any defendant at the time of the commission of the acts

that gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section; .. . .

Also relevant to the finding as guidance to the court is 15 M.R.S.A. § 5827 requiring “the provisions of this chapter must be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.”

The search warrant was executed at the residence in Vassalboro of Shane and Rebecca Wood on September 25, 2000. On the premises was found a very large number of processed and unprocessed marijuana plants resulting in the defendant’s conviction of marijuana cultivation and unlawful trafficking. In the execution of the search warrant, 27 firearms were confiscated as well as $5,442 found in a bank envelope under the mattress in the master bedroom of the defendant and his wife. The State is seeking

forfeiture of the cash and the firearms, third-party ancillary requests have been filed

and hearing was held with all parties represented by counsel.

' That statutory language, effective July 3, 1995, appears to countermand a Law Court decision of 1991

asserting that the forfeiture statute, being penal in nature, will be strictly construed against the State. See State v. One Uzi Semi-Automatic 9 mm Gun, 589 A.2d 31 (Me. 1991) Rebecca Wood testified that she was the owner of the firearms listed in her affidavit both for hobby and investment purposes. She claims to be a collector of valuable firearms as well as a person who enjoys marksmanship. She described the location of the various firearms to which she claims ownership. Of the six firearms, she admits that four have been kept and were found in her bedroom. She admits to full access to all firearms in the bedroom by her husband, the defendant. Mrs. Wood also claims that she can attribute $4,500 of the cash found in the bank envelope under the mattress to her sources including sale of property and savings for Christmas presents from her income. She claims that she paid her bills in cash having been advised by her father against other means of securing liquid assets.

It is clear that some of the money in that same envelope under that same mattress was utilized by the defendant in the trafficking of the drug contraband. The burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence is on the petitioner to establish the right, title and interest to the cash or to establish a right, title and interest greater than that of the defendant and to his exclusion. The cash in the bank envelope was clearly fungible and incapable of individual identification. While the petitioner can explain her source of funds, she can only surmise the amounts attributable to certain sources. Some of the money clearly was used for unlawful purposes by the defendant, admittedly with the knowledge of the petitioner. It is alleged by the State and substantiated by the exhibits that a substantial amount of marijuana product worth a great deal of money was found in the search. The court does not find that it is more likely than not that the cash found under the mattress in the bank envelope belonged to Rebecca Wood solely or that she had a right superior to that of the defendant.

Elizabeth Myron, mother to the defendant, testified as to the ownership of

certain antique guns which she obtained by inheritance. She testified that the guns had been placed in the possession of the defendant some weeks before the execution of the search warrant for purposes of the defendant, an acknowledged gun dealer, to obtain appraisals. Mrs. Myron supported her testimony with photographs taken in 1991 by her husband in order to document ownership of the firearms for insurance protection prior to undertaking a lengthy sojourn. This was confirmed by testimony of her husband.

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

Related

State v. One Uzi Semi-Automatic 9mm Gun
589 A.2d 31 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Wood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-wood-mesuperct-2003.