State of Louisiana VS Melissa Robinson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 2135 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS MELISSA ROBINSON A C Judgment rendered MAY 7201 0 On Appeal from the 22 Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana 2008 14671 Division I The Honorable Reginald T Badeaux III Judge Presiding Jessica J Brewster Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Assistant District Attorney Covington La State of Louisiana Kathryn Landry Baton Rouge La Special Appeals Counsel Marion B Farmer Counsel for Defendant Appellee David J Knight Covington La Melissa Robinson BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ DOWNING J This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of claimant Melissa Robinson upon her motion for new trial wherein the trial court ordered the State to return 7 seized in connection with alleged illegal activities For the 00 900 following reasons we affirm the trial court judgment The issue on appeal is whether the trial court was clearly wrong when it found that the State did not sufficiently prove that the cash found in claimant s vehicle which was parked in the garage during the course of an armed robbery investigation was contraband subject to forfeiture The First Circuit has generated little jurisprudence on civil forfeiture under La R 40 et seq since the law was amended in 1997 changing the burden S 2601 of proof to a preponderance of the evidence when a claim is timely filed See State v Green 42 pp 3 4 La App 2 Cir 6960 So 1270 1272 for a 253 07 20 2d discussion of the amendment see also State v Property Seized From Davede Davillier 00 660 in S U Currency 08 1329 p 1 App La 1 Cir 5 8 09 which held that in a contested forfeiture proceeding the unpublished State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the connexity between the seized property giving rise to the forfeiture and the illegal activity Id The State claims that even though the money and the evidence of drug activity were not found in proximity to each other there was a direct connection between the evidence of drug packaging and the vehicle where the cash was found e i a receipt for a wrecker service for the vehicle in question Ms Robinson however testified that the money had been given to her by her domestic partner to pay a lawyer handling a civil matter for her and also to repair the vehicle Upon hearing claimant testimony about how she acquired the money the trial court s Louisiana Revised Statute 40 provides in pertinent part that money found in proximity to contraband or an 26116 instrumentality of conduct giving rise to forfeiture shall give rise to a permissible inference that the money was used to facilitate the conduct 2 granted Ms Robinson motion for new trial The trial court ruled that the State s failed to satisfy its statutory burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence Here we conclude that the trial court was not clearly wrong in finding that the State has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence pursuant to La S 2612G R 40 that money found in the vehicle was a property subject to forfeiture pursuant to La R 40 Ms Robinson was at the searched S 2604 residence temporarily and no evidence was presented that Ms Robinson was engaged in illegal conduct giving rise to the forfeiture Further the evidence supports the trial court implicit finding that the State failed to establish the s connexity between the seized property and the illegal activity We accordingly affirm the trial court judgment The costs of this appeal in the amount of 803 53 are assessed against the State of Louisiana AFFIRMED 3
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.
