SMITH (WILLIAM JAMES) VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-001481-MR
WILLIAM JAMES SMITH, II
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE KELLY MARK EASTON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CR-00381
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: KELLER AND THOMPSON, JUDGES; HARRIS,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
KELLER, JUDGE: William James Smith (Smith) appeals, pro se, from an order
of the Hardin Circuit Court directing that $932 in cash seized from him be
forfeited. For reasons set forth below, we affirm.
FACTS
1
Senior Judge William R. Harris sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.
Smith was convicted in 2007, after a jury trial, of first-degree
possession of cocaine (subsequent offense), possession of drug paraphernalia
(subsequent offense), third-degree possession of hydrocodone, and being a firstdegree persistent felony offender. However, the jury did not convict Smith of the
additional charge of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance. Smith
appealed to this Court, and we affirmed his judgment of conviction in an
unpublished opinion, Smith v. Commonwealth, Case No. 2007-CA-001005-MR.
Having reviewed the record, we adopt the following facts from Case 2007-CA001005-MR:
On May 24, 2006, Lindsay Brown (“Brown”)
phoned the Elizabethtown Police Department (“EPD”)
claiming that her boyfriend, Smith, had threatened her at
her apartment with a gun. Police were met at Brown’s
apartment by Smith’s friend, Reginald Haire, who
opened the door. Officer Matt Hodge immediately
detained Smith who was standing in the living room of
the small one-bedroom apartment. With his permission,
police searched Smith and found $932.00 and two cell
phones on his person.
A few minutes later, Sgt. Jamie Land of the EPD
arrived and told the other officers present that he had
permission for a search of the apartment from Brown, the
apartment’s lease-holder. Following the search of the
apartment, the officers recovered: a pipe with white
residue and rolling papers from a small couch in the
living room; rolling papers under the same couch; a
police scanner with an index card containing the public
service agency frequencies in the county; two plastic
baggies on top of the mirror in the bathroom that
contained cocaine; two sets of scales, three boxes of
plastic baggies, and a white tray with white powder on it
in a kitchen cabinet; and a white powdery residue
beneath the cabinet that field-tested positive for cocaine.
-2-
In addition, the officers found a surveillance
system that monitored the back door of the apartment and
a bag belonging to Smith containing cologne, boxer
shorts, deodorant, CDs, a butane torch, a blue pill, a red
memo book with names and numbers on the front page,
four nonfunctioning cell phones, and fifty small zip-lock
baggies. Another search of Smith at the police station
produced a small switch-blade knife and a white pill
identified as hydrocodone.
At trial, Smith denied that any of the drugs and
drug-related items seized in Brown’s apartment that night
belonged to him.
Brown testified that all of the items except for the plastic baggies found in the
kitchen cabinet belonged to Smith.
On June 8, 2009, Smith filed a pro se “Motion for Disposition of
Seized Property to be Returned Pursuant to KRS . . . [sic].” In his motion, Smith
moved the trial court to return the $932 seized from him. On July 7, 2009, the trial
court held a hearing on Smith’s motion, and Smith participated telephonically.2 On
July 21, 2009, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order directing that $932 in cash seized from Smith be forfeited. It is from this
order that Smith appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The issue on appeal before this Court is regarding the trial court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law and regarding the record made before it.
The findings of fact made by a trial court are reviewed under the clearly erroneous
2
The Commonwealth noted in its brief to this Court that the video tape of the July 7, 2009,
forfeiture hearing was not included in the record on appeal. We have reviewed the record, and
note that a copy of the forfeiture hearing was included in the record on appeal.
-3-
standard. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 52.01. However, rulings of law
are reviewed de novo. Jackson v. Commonwealth, 187 S.W.3d 300, 305 (Ky.
2006).
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Smith argues that the trial court erred in ordering the
forfeiture of his $932 in cash. Specifically, Smith asserts that the trial court erred
in its determination that the Commonwealth established a prima facie case for
forfeiture pursuant to KRS 218A.410.
KRS 218A.410(j) applies to the forfeiture of currency. Specifically, it
permits forfeiture of “[e]verything of value furnished, or intended to be furnished,
in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this chapter, all proceeds . . .
traceable to the exchange, and all moneys . . . used, or intended to be used, to
facilitate any violation of this chapter . . . .” Subsection (j) further provides:
It shall be a rebuttable 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.
It is well-established that the Commonwealth bears the burden of
proof in forfeiture actions. Osborne v. Commonwealth, 839 S.W.2d 281 (Ky.
-4-
1992). To meet its burden of proof and make a prima facie case, the
Commonwealth must produce “slight evidence of traceability.” Id. at 284. This
means that the Commonwealth must “produce some evidence that the currency or
some portion of it had been used or was intended to be used in a drug transaction.”
Id. If the Commonwealth provides additional proof that the currency sought to be
forfeited was found in close proximity, then it is deemed sufficient to make a
prima facie case. If the Commonwealth establishes its prima facie case, the burden
is then on the defendant to rebut this presumption by clear and convincing
evidence. Id.
Smith contends that because he was not convicted of trafficking, the
Commonwealth failed to meet its burden that the money was being used to further
drug activity. We disagree.
In Osborne, the Supreme Court of Kentucky clarified that “nothing in
the forfeiture statute requires criminal conviction of the person whose property is
sought to be forfeited. It is sufficient under KRS 218A.410(h) and (j) to show a
nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and its use to facilitate violation
of the Controlled Substances Act, KRS 218A.” Id. at 283.
In this case, the Commonwealth produced some evidence of
traceability plus proof of close proximity with illegal drug activity. The police
officers recovered the $932 in cash from Smith’s pockets. As the trial testimony
makes clear, a search of the premises at the time of the arrest of Smith resulted in
the finding of the following items: two digital scales, a scanner and documentation
-5-
of police radio frequencies, multiple cell phones, including two on Smith’s person
at the time of his arrest, a camera mounted for surveillance use, and the drugs
which led to Smith’s conviction.
The $932 in cash was noted to be in various small denominations. At
the forfeiture hearing, Officer Hodge testified that the denominations indicated use
of the money in trafficking. Additionally, there were more than fifty zip lock
plastic bags found in a Bud Light cooler bag belonging to Smith. Officer Hodge
also testified that such bags are often used for trafficking activities. In light of this
evidence, we conclude that the Commonwealth produced at least “slight evidence
of traceability.” Osborne, 839 S.W.2d at 284 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the
trial court’s finding that the Commonwealth established a prima facie case for
forfeiture was not clearly erroneous.
As the Commonwealth met its burden of production and established a
prima facie case, the burden was shifted to Smith to rebut the presumption by clear
and convincing evidence. Id. We believe the trial court did not err in concluding
that Smith failed to meet his burden.
At the forfeiture hearing, Smith argued that Melissa Stevens (Stevens)
“gave” him the money that was seized and that the money was not related to drug
activity. In support of his argument, Smith pointed to Stevens’ testimony at his
probation revocation hearing held on August 8, 2006 in an unrelated case, Case
No. 00-CR-00215.3 At that hearing, Stevens testified that she had been with Smith
3
The Commonwealth noted that a copy of the probation revocation hearing was not included in
the record on appeal. Having reviewed the record, we note that this hearing was included in the
-6-
on the day he was arrested at Brown’s apartment. Additionally, Stevens testified
that although she had known Smith for less than three months, she loaned him
$1,500 to help him pay his child support obligation. Stevens did not testify at
Smith’s subsequent trial in this case and she did not make a request for the return
of the money she “loaned” to Smith.
The trial court noted that it reviewed Smith’s probation revocation
hearing and that it was not persuaded that Stevens gave Smith the $932. Because
such credibility determinations are within the exclusive province of the fact-finder,
Cole v. Gilvin, 59 S.W.3d 468, 473 (Ky. App. 2001), we believe the trial court did
not err in concluding that Smith failed to rebut the presumption by clear and
convincing evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Hardin Circuit
Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
William James Smith, pro se
Central City, Kentucky
Jack Conway
Attorney General of Kentucky
David B. Abner
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky
record on appeal.
-7-
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.