STEPHEN P. RICE v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: December 10, 1999; 2:00 p.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1998-CA-001095-MR
STEPHEN P. RICE
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JAMES SHAKE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 97-CR-01307
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
COMBS, GUIDUGLI AND EMBERTON, JUDGES.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE.
Stephen P. Rice (Rice) appeals an order
entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court granting the Commonwealth
of Kentucky’s motion for forfeiture of $13,745 seized at the time
of Rice’s arrest for trafficking in a controlled substance
(cocaine).
We affirm.
On March 4, 1997, Rice was observed in his vehicle
selling cocaine.
When the police detectives approached the
vehicle they found a small amount of cocaine under the driver and
passenger seats and a larger bag of cocaine hidden in the
dashboard.
Rice was arrested for trafficking in a controlled
substance.
Rice subsequently consented to a search of his
residence.
The search revealed approximately 58.6 grams of
cocaine, $13,745 in cash, a .38 caliber revolver and assorted
drug paraphernalia.
On June 4, 1997, the Jefferson County Grand
Jury returned a six (6) count indictment against Rice.
Thereafter, on November 20, 1997, Rice entered into a negotiated
plea in which he agreed to plead guilty to two (2) counts of
trafficking in a controlled substance and serve (6) years with
the remaining charges being dismissed.
Included in the plea
recommendations was the statement that the Commonwealth would
move to forfeit the $13,745 seized on the date of the arrest.
After the trial court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced Rice
to the agreed upon six years1 a hearing was scheduled on the
forfeiture issue.
At the forfeiture hearing held on January 30, 1998,
Robert Gear and Bruce Hicks testified on behalf of Rice.
Mr.
Gear indicated that he had traveled to Las Vegas in January of
1997, with Rice and was told that Rice had won “a lot of money”
at the craps table.
On cross-examination, Gear admitted that he
had no idea how much money Rice had in March, 1997 (the time of
the arrest).
Mr. Hicks testified that he also traveled to Las
Vegas with Rice in January 1997 and personally saw him win over
$11,000 at the craps table.
On cross-examination, Hicks admitted
that Rice worked at his night club earning approximately $6.00
per hour and he did not know anything about Rice’s financial
situation or how much money he possessed in February or March of
1
Rice actually received a sentence of seven (7) years in
that he was on probation at the time of this offense and the
court revoked the one-year sentence previously imposed.
-2-
1997.
Rice also testified at the hearing and claimed that he
came back from Las Vegas in January of 1997, with $12,750.
Of
the $13,475 seized at the time of his arrest, Rice stated that
$12,750 (the amount he brought back from Las Vegas) was found in
a fire proof box at his home and $700 was taken from his person.
Rice also admitted to using and selling cocaine since July 1996,
and that he had no physical proof that he had won a large sum of
money in Las Vegas.
Under cross-examination, Rice agreed that
some cocaine was found in the fire proof box and additional
cocaine was found in close proximity to the box.
Finally, he
stated that he earned approximately $200 to $300 every two weeks
during January, February, and March of 1997.
Applying these
facts and the forfeiture statute, KRS 218A.410(j), the trial
court held that Rice had failed to adequately trace the money
seized to his alleged gambling winnings in January.
As such, the
court determined that Rice had failed to meet his burden of proof
by clear and convincing evidence and thus the motion for
forfeiture must be granted.
This appeal followed.
KRS 218A.410 deals with property subject to forfeiture
in drug cases.
KRS 218A.410(1)(j) reads as follows:
Everything of value furnished, or
intended to be furnished, in exchange for a
controlled substance in violation of this
chapter, all proceeds, including real and
personal property, traceable to the exchange,
and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and
securities used, or intended to be used, to
facilitate any violation of this chapter;
except that no property shall be forfeited
under this paragraph, to the extent of the
interest of an owner, by reason of any act or
omission established by him to have been
committed or omitted without his knowledge or
consent. It shall be a rebuttable
-3-
presumption that all moneys, coin, and
currency found in close proximity to
controlled substances, to drug manufacturing
or distributing paraphernalia, or to records
of the importation, manufacture, or
distribution of controlled substances, are
presumed to be forfeitable under this
paragraph. The burden of proof shall be upon
claimants of personal property to rebut this
presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
The burden of proof shall be upon the law
enforcement agency to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that real property is
forfeitable under this paragraph.
Pursuant to the statute, currency is subject to forfeiture.
Also, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that “all
moneys, coin, and currency found in close proximity to controlled
substances,...are presumed to be forfeitable under this
paragraph.”
KRS 218A.410(1)(j).
In this case the money in
question was found in a fire proof box together with cocaine and
in the same room in close proximity to more cocaine.
There was a
“close proximity” between the money and the controlled
substances.
Therefore, the money is presumed to be forfeitable.
The burden of proof then shifts to Rice to rebut the presumption
by clear and convincing evidence.
In Osborne v. Commonwealth,
Ky., 839 S.W.2d 281 (1992), Kentucky’s Supreme Court set forth
the proper standards for compliance by the Commonwealth in
forfeiture cases:
The Commonwealth may meet its initial burden
by producing slight evidence of traceability.
Production of such evidence plus proof of
close proximity, the weight of which is
enhanced by virtue of the presumption, is
sufficient to sustain the forfeiture in the
absence of clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary. In practical application, the
Commonwealth must first produce some evidence
that the currency or some portion of it had
been used or was intended to be used in a
-4-
drug transaction. Additional proof by the
Commonwealth that the currency sought to be
forfeited was found in close proximity is
sufficient to make a prima facie case.
Thereafter, the burden is on the claimant to
convince the trier of fact that the currency
was not being used in the drug trade.
Osborne, 839 S.W.2d at 283.
In the case sub judice, the money seized was found on
Rice during an observed drug transaction and in his residence,
after a consensual search, in a box with cocaine and in a room
with more cocaine (a total of 58.6 grams of cocaine).
Rice
alleges that he won the money on a gambling expedition several
months earlier but has no documents or other physical proof to
verify his claims.
To believe his version of the events, one
must believe that he won almost $13,000 and then locked it in a
box at his home and never touched or used it again.
At the same
time he earned only $200 to $300 every two weeks and bought and
sold large volumes of cocaine.
The trial court permitted Rice a
full opportunity to present his case but found that Rice had
failed to rebut the presumption that the seized money was not
subject to forfeiture under KRS 218A.410.
A thorough review of
this matter convinces this Court that the trial judge’s order is
not clearly erroneous.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jefferson
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-5-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT PRO SE:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Stephen P. Rice
St. Mary, KY
A. B. Chandler, III
Attorney General
Brian T. Judy
Assistant Commonwealth
Attorney
Frankfort, KY
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
