State v. Goodenow

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED: July 11, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTINA ELIZABETH GOODENOW, Defendant-Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 054754FE A136645 Raymond B. White, Judge. Argued and submitted on July 08, 2010. Michelle R. Burrows argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. Michael R. Washington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge. DUNCAN, J. Affirmed. 1 DUNCAN, J. 2 This is a criminal case in which defendant appeals the trial court's judgment 3 convicting and sentencing her for three crimes--aggravated theft in the first degree, ORS 4 164.057; forgery in the first degree, ORS 165.013; and cheating, ORS 167.167--and 5 ordering her to forfeit $960,843.77 in lottery winnings that she obtained by purchasing a 6 lottery ticket with a credit card that she was not authorized to use. On appeal, defendant 7 argues that the forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment 8 to the United States Constitution.1 For the reasons below, we conclude that the forfeiture 9 of the winnings does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause. Therefore, we affirm. I. HISTORICAL AND PROCEDURAL FACTS 10 The relevant facts are undisputed. At the time defendant committed her 11 12 crimes, she was unemployed and had no source of income. She was caring for her 13 children and, according to the parties, living "close to the financial edge." She obtained a 14 Visa card issued in the name of her boyfriend's deceased mother, Cornett, and used the 15 card to make unauthorized purchases totaling $11,366.38. When defendant made the 16 purchases, she presented herself as Cornett; she used an identification card with her 17 photograph and Cornett's name. Defendant's purchases included groceries and groups of 18 lottery tickets. One of the lottery tickets defendant purchased was a $1 million winner. 19 20 Defendant claimed the prize, which was payable in installments of $50,000 per year for 1 The Eighth Amendment provides, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." 1 1 20 years. Defendant collected the first $50,000 installment, receiving $33,500 after 2 taxes. She promptly used a portion of the $33,500 to pay the balance due on the Visa 3 account. 4 A grand jury indicted defendant for seven crimes--identity theft, ORS 5 165.800; aggravated theft in the first degree, ORS 164.057; forgery in the first degree, 6 ORS 165.013; theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055; fraudulent use of a credit card, ORS 7 165.055; unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894; and cheating, ORS 8 167.167--and two counts of criminal forfeiture, ORS 131.550 to 131.604 (providing for 9 the forfeiture of all proceeds of prohibited conduct, which includes felonies and Class A 10 misdemeanors). The first forfeiture count was for $10,843.77, the portion of the first 11 lottery payment that defendant still possessed. The second forfeiture count was for 12 $950,000, the remaining 19 lottery payments. 13 Pursuant to plea negotiations, defendant entered no contest pleas to 14 aggravated theft in the first degree, forgery in the first degree, and cheating, and the 15 charges for the other crimes were dismissed. Defendant waived her right to a jury trial on 16 the two criminal forfeiture counts and tried them to the court on stipulated evidence. 17 Defendant acknowledged that, for the purposes of Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes, 18 ORS 131.550 to 131.604, the lottery winnings were the proceeds of criminal activity and, 19 as such, were subject to forfeiture under the statutes. But defendant argued that the 20 forfeiture sought by the state, which totaled more than $960,000, would violate the 21 Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the imposition of a 22 punitive forfeiture that is "grossly disproportional" to the crimes for which it is imposed. 2 1 United States v. Bajakajian, 524 US 321, 337, 118 S Ct 2028, 141 L Ed 2d 314 (1998). 2 Defendant argued that the forfeiture of all of her remaining lottery winnings would be 3 grossly disproportional to her crimes. She suggested that, given her crimes, the court 4 could impose a forfeiture in the amount of $10,843.77 (the remaining amount of the first 5 lottery payment). In response, the state argued that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply 6 7 to forfeiture of criminal proceeds, and, therefore, did not apply to the forfeiture of 8 defendant's remaining lottery winnings because the winnings were the proceeds of 9 defendant's crimes. The trial court concluded that all of defendant's remaining lottery winnings 10 11 were subject to forfeiture under Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes, explaining that the 12 statutes "require[d] that * * * judgment be entered for the [s]tate." The court did not 13 analyze whether the forfeiture was proportional to defendant's crimes; it rejected 14 defendant's constitutional arguments without discussion. II. DISCUSSION 15 16 On appeal, defendant renews the arguments that she made in the trial 17 court.2 The state responds that, because the Excessive Fines Clause applies only to 2 In addition to the arguments she made in the trial court, defendant also argues that the forfeiture of all of her remaining lottery winnings violated the Excessive Fines Clause of Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. Defendant did not preserve that argument. In the trial court, defendant relied on the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment; she never referred to the Excessive Fines Clause of Article I, section 16. Because defendant did not preserve that state constitutional argument, we do not address it. See State v. Jones, 246 Or App 412, 418, 418 n 5, 266 P3d 151 (2011) (explaining that the defendant's argument under the Oregon Constitution was not preserved where "[the] 3 1 punitive forfeitures, Austin v. United States, 509 US 602, 609-10, 113 S Ct 2801, 125 L 2 Ed 2d 488 (1993), it does not apply to forfeitures of criminal proceeds, which, according 3 to the state, are remedial. Alternatively, the state argues that, even if forfeitures of 4 criminal proceeds are punitive and subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, the forfeiture of 5 defendant's remaining lottery winnings was not grossly disproportional to defendant's 6 crimes. Thus, we address the following issues, in turn: (1) whether defendant's lottery 7 winnings are subject to forfeiture under Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes; (2) whether 8 the Excessive Fines Clause applies to the forfeiture; and, if so, (3) whether the forfeiture 9 violates the Excessive Fines Clause.3 10 A. Oregon's Criminal Forfeiture Statutes 11 For necessary context, we begin with Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes. 12 Under the statutes, "all proceeds of or from prohibited conduct" are "subject to criminal 13 forfeiture." ORS 131.558(6). "[F]or purposes of proceeds," "prohibited conduct" means 14 "a felony or a Class A misdemeanor." ORS 131.550(12)(a). The phrase "proceeds of prohibited conduct" is broadly defined as 15 defendant never placed before the trial court any argument under the Oregon Constitution" (emphasis in original)). 3 In a footnote in her appellate brief, defendant asserts that her conviction for cheating is invalid. She argues that her plea on the cheating count was not knowingly and voluntarily made because "[p]leading guilty or no contest to an offense that one is not guilty of because the requisite elements are not satisfied can never be considered a knowing and voluntary plea." Defendant does not assign error to the trial court's acceptance of her guilty plea, and we do not address it. See Confederated Tribes (Siletz) v. Employment Dept., 165 Or App 65, 81 n 8, 995 P2d 580 (2000) (an alleged error cannot be raised in a footnote rather than through an assignment of error). 4 1 "property derived directly or indirectly from, maintained by or realized through an act or 2 omission that constitutes prohibited conduct, and includes any benefit, interest or 3 property of any kind without reduction for expenses of acquiring or maintaining it or 4 incurred for any other reason." ORS 131.550(11). "Property," in turn, is also broadly 5 defined; it is "any interest in anything of value, including the whole of any lot or tract of 6 land and tangible and intangible personal property, including currency, instruments or 7 securities or any other kind of privilege, interest, claim or right whether due or to become 8 due." ORS 131.550(13). 9 Thus, as relevant here, Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes provide for the 10 forfeiture of "any interest in anything of value, including * * * [a] claim or right whether 11 due or to become due," ORS 131.550(13), "derived directly or indirectly from * * * or 12 realized through," ORS 131.550(11), "a felony or a Class A misdemeanor," ORS 13 133.550(12)(a). 14 Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes do not limit the amount of property 15 that may be forfeited as the proceeds of prohibited conduct. They do not require courts to 16 determine whether a forfeiture of a defendant's property is proportional to the defendant's 17 crime. ORS 131.585(1) ("The court shall enter judgment to the extent that the property is 18 proceeds of the crime of conviction or of past prohibited conduct that is similar to the 19 crime of conviction."). (In that respect, the statutes treat the forfeiture of the proceeds of 20 defendants' crimes differently from the forfeiture of instrumentalities of defendants' 21 crimes. The statutes require courts to determine whether the forfeiture of an 22 instrumentality of a defendant's crime, such as a vehicle or building used in the 5 1 commission of a crime, is proportional to the crime and identify factors to consider in 2 making that determination. ORS 131.585(2)(a) - (g).4) Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes also do not provide for forfeiture 3 4 ORS 131.585(2) provides: "(2) With respect to property that is an instrumentality of the crime of conviction or of past prohibited conduct that is similar to the crime of conviction, the court shall consider: "(a) Whether the property constitutes the defendant's lawful livelihood or means of earning a living. "(b) Whether the property is the defendant's residence. "(c) The degree of relationship between the property and the prohibited conduct, including the extent to which the property facilitated the prohibited conduct or could facilitate future prohibited conduct. "(d) The monetary value of the property in relation to the risk of injury to the public from the prohibited conduct. "(e) The monetary value of the property in relation to the actual injury to the public from the prohibited conduct. "(f) The monetary value of the property in relation to objective measures of the potential or actual criminal culpability of the person or persons engaging in the prohibited conduct, including: "(A) The inherent gravity of the prohibited conduct; "(B) The potential sentence for similar prohibited conduct under Oregon law; "(C) The defendant's prior criminal history; and "(D) The sentence actually imposed on the defendant. "(g) Any additional relevant evidence." 6 1 without a corresponding criminal conviction.5 ORS 131.582(4) ("A criminal forfeiture 2 proceeding and the underlying criminal case must be tried in the same proceeding."); 3 ORS 131.582(6) ("The court shall enter a judgment of criminal forfeiture if the forfeiture 4 counsel proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the property for which forfeiture is sought 5 is an instrumentality or the proceeds of the crime of conviction[.]"). If the owner of 6 property subject to forfeiture can prove that he or she is a bona fide purchaser for value 7 and did not acquiesce in the prohibited conduct--that is, if he or she is an innocent owner- 8 -the property is not forfeitable. ORS 131.573; ORS 131.582(9) - (11); ORS 9 131.588(6)(a). In this case, defendant's lottery winnings are the proceeds of prohibited 10 11 conduct; they are property derived from her crimes of conviction, all of which are 12 felonies. As such, they are subject to forfeiture under Oregon's criminal forfeiture 13 statutes. Defendant argues that, although her lottery winnings are subject to 14 5 A narrow exception to that rule exists under ORS 131.582(7), which provides that forfeiture may take place under certain circumstances when "the court finds that the defendant is not confined or held in custody by another jurisdiction, and that the defendant, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant has been issued for the defendant: "(a) Purposely left the state to avoid prosecution; "(b) Declines to return to the state and allow execution of the warrant; or "(c) Otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the court issuing the warrant." 7 1 forfeiture under the criminal forfeiture statutes as the proceeds of her crimes and the 2 statutes do not limit the amount of property that may be forfeited as the proceeds of her 3 crimes, the trial court's order that she forfeit all of her remaining winnings violates the 4 Excessive Fines Clause. According to defendant, the Excessive Fines Clause imposes a 5 proportionality requirement on all in personam criminal forfeitures, including in 6 personam criminal forfeitures of the proceeds of crimes.6 Thus, we turn to the second 7 issue in this case, the applicability of the Excessive Fines Clause to such forfeitures. 8 B. Applicability of the Excessive Fines Clause The Eighth Amendment provides, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor 9 10 excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." At the time the 11 Constitution was adopted, "'the word "fine" was understood to mean a payment to a 12 sovereign as punishment for some offense.'" Bajakajian, 524 US at 327-28 (quoting 13 Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelso Disposal, 492 US 257, 265, 109 S Ct 2909, 106 L 14 Ed 2d 219 (1989)). "The Excessive Fines Clause thus limits the government's power to 15 extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense." 16 Bajakajian, 524 US at 328 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the 17 Excessive Fines Clause applies to forfeitures--payments in kind--that constitute 6 An in personam forfeiture is imposed in a proceeding against a person, while an in rem forfeiture is the result of a proceeding directly against "guilty property." Bajakajian, 524 US at 330-31; Black's Law Dictionary 807, 809 (8th ed 2004) (defining "in personam" as "([o]f a legal action) brought against a person rather than property"; defining "in rem" as "[i]nvolving or determining the status of a thing, and therefore the rights of persons generally with respect to that thing"). 8 1 punishments for offenses.7 Id. The United States Supreme Court considered whether an in personam 2 3 criminal forfeiture constituted a punishment for an offense and, therefore, was subject to 4 the Excessive Fines Clause in Bajakajian, 524 US 321. In that case, the respondent was 5 criminally prosecuted for violating a federal statute, 31 USC section 5316(a)(1)(A), by 6 failing to report that he was transporting more than $10,000 outside the United States.8 7 In connection with the prosecution, the government sought the forfeiture of all of the cash 8 the respondent had attempted to transport, $357,144. The government sought the 7 The United States Supreme Court has not definitively held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Compare McDonald v. City of Chicago, ___ US ___, 130 S Ct 3020, 3035 n 13, 177 L Ed 2d 894 (2010) ("We never have decided whether the Third Amendment or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines applies to the States through the Due Process Clause."), with Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 US 424, 433-34, 121 S Ct 1678, 149 L Ed 2d 674 (2001) (The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "makes the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments applicable to the States[.]"). Neither party raises that issue here. Therefore, we assume, without deciding, that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See State v. Clark, 124 Wash 2d 90, 102, 875 P2d 613, 618 (1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Catlett, 133 Wash 2d 355, 945 P2d 700 (1997) ("Because neither party raises it, we do not reach the issue whether the federal excessive fines clause applies to state action."). 8 31 USC section 5316(a) provides, in part: "[A] person or an agent or bailee of the person shall file a report * * * when the person, agent, or bailee knowingly-"(1) transports, is about to transport, or has transported, monetary instruments of more than $10,000 at one time-"(A) from a place in the United States to or through a place outside the United States[.]" 9 1 forfeiture pursuant to a statute, 18 USC section 982(a)(1), which provided that, in 2 imposing sentence on a person convicted of violating the reporting requirement, a court 3 "shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, 4 involved in such offense." Bajakajian, 524 US at 325. 5 After the respondent pleaded guilty to violating the reporting requirement, 6 the district court concluded that the respondent's $357,144 was subject to forfeiture under 7 section 982(a)(1) because it was "involved in" the reporting violation, but that forfeiture 8 of the full amount would violate the Excessive Fines Clause because it would be "grossly 9 disproportionate to the offense in question." Id. at 326 (internal quotation marks 10 11 omitted). Based on that conclusion, the district court reduced the forfeiture to $15,000. The government appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, like the lower courts, concluded that the in 13 personam criminal forfeiture was punitive and, therefore, subject to the Excessive Fines 14 Clause and its proportionality requirement. In reaching its conclusion, the Court rejected 15 two of the government's arguments that the Excessive Fines Clause did not apply to the 16 forfeiture. Because the state has raised similar arguments here, we review the Court's 17 analysis of them in some detail. 18 First, the Court rejected the government's argument that forfeitures under 19 section 982(a)(1) are not subject to the Excessive Fines Clause because they serve 20 "important remedial purposes." Bajakajian, 524 US at 329 (internal quotation marks 21 omitted). The government argued that such forfeitures serve to "deter illicit movements 22 of cash" and to aid the government in obtaining "information to investigate and detect 10 1 criminal activities associated with that cash." Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks 2 omitted). In response, the Court rejected the assertion that deterrence is a nonpunitive 3 purpose, stating that "[d]eterrence * * * has traditionally been viewed as a goal of 4 punishment[.]" Id. The Court also rejected the assertion that forfeiture of property under 5 section 982(a)(1) is remedial, stating that it "does not serve the remedial purpose of 6 compensating the Government for a loss." Id. ("Although the Government has asserted a 7 loss of information regarding the amount of currency leaving the country, that loss would 8 not be remediated by the Government's confiscation of [the] respondent's $357,144."). 9 The Court went on to note that, even if the forfeiture of property under 10 section 982(a)(1) were remedial in part, it would still be subject to the Excessive Fines 11 Clause. The Court explained, "Even if the Government were correct in claiming that the 12 forfeiture of respondent's currency is remedial in some way, the forfeiture would still be 13 punitive in part. (The Government concedes as much.) This is sufficient to bring the 14 forfeiture within the purview of the Excessive Fines Clause." Id. at 329 n 4 (citing 15 Austin, 509 US at 621-22). Thus, the Court established three points in the course of 16 rejecting the government's argument that the forfeiture was not punitive: (1) the fact that 17 a forfeiture serves a deterrent purpose does not mean that it is remedial; (2) a forfeiture 18 that does not compensate anyone for a loss is not remedial; and (3) a forfeiture that is 19 remedial in part and punitive in part is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause. 20 Second, the Supreme Court rejected the government's argument that 21 forfeitures under section 982(a)(1) are not subject to the Excessive Fines Clause because 22 they "fall[] within a class of historic forfeitures of property tainted by crime." Id. at 329. 11 1 The government argued that forfeitures under section 982(a)(1) are akin to traditional 2 civil in rem forfeitures, which are considered nonpunitive and, therefore, not subject to 3 the Excessive Fines Clause. The Court rejected the government's comparison, explaining 4 that traditional civil in rem forfeitures are considered nonpunitive because they are 5 proceedings against property, not persons. Id. at 329-30 ("The theory behind such 6 forfeitures was the fiction that the action was directed against 'guilty property,' rather than 7 against the offender himself."). "Historically, the conduct of the property owner was 8 irrelevant; indeed, the owner of forfeited property could be entirely innocent of any 9 crime." Id. at 330; see also The Palmyra, 25 US (12 Wheat) 1, 14-15, 6 L Ed 531 (1827) 10 (traditional civil in rem forfeitures are "independent of, and wholly unaffected by any 11 criminal proceeding in personam"). Thus, traditional civil in rem forfeitures "[have not 12 been] considered punishment against [an] individual for an offense."9 Bajakajian, 524 13 US at 331. In contrast, the Court explained, criminal in personam forfeitures "have 14 15 historically been treated as punitive, being part of the punishment imposed for felonies 16 and treason[.]" Id. at 332. Accordingly, they are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause. 17 Id. at 333-34. 9 Although traditional civil in rem forfeitures have been considered nonpunitive, some modern forfeiture laws "have blurred the traditional distinction between civil in rem and criminal in personam forfeiture," Bajakajian, 524 US at 331 n 6, prompting the Supreme Court to hold that whether a forfeiture is punitive, and, therefore, subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, does not depend on its label. "[A] modern statutory forfeiture is a 'fine' for Eighth Amendment purposes if it constitutes punishment even in part, regardless of whether the proceeding is styled in rem or in personam." Id. 12 1 Applying that distinction, the Court reasoned that forfeitures under section 2 982(a)(1) "descend[] not from historic in rem forfeitures of guilty property, but from a 3 different historical tradition: that of in personam, criminal forfeitures." Id. They are 4 sought through proceedings against individuals and are imposed as punishments. 5 Accordingly, the Supreme Court observed that the forfeiture of the cash 6 involved in the respondent's violation of the reporting requirement did not "bear any of 7 the hallmarks of traditional civil in rem forfeitures." Id. at 331. The Court explained, 8 "The Government has not proceeded against the currency itself, but has instead sought 9 and obtained a criminal conviction of respondent personally. The forfeiture serves no 10 remedial purpose, is designed to punish the offender, and cannot be imposed on innocent 11 owners." Id. at 331-32. Therefore, the Court concluded, the forfeiture was subject to the 12 Excessive Fines Clause. Id. at 333-34. In doing so, the Court expressly rejected the 13 government's argument that the respondent's currency could be forfeited as an 14 "instrumentality" of the respondent's crimes, explaining: 15 16 17 18 19 20 "Instrumentalities historically have been treated as a form of 'guilty property' that can be forfeited in civil in rem proceedings. In this case however, the Government has sought to punish the respondent by proceeding against him criminally, in personam, rather than proceeding in rem against the currency. It is therefore irrelevant whether the respondent's currency is an instrumentality; the forfeiture is punitive[.]" 21 Id. at 333 (emphasis added). Thus, under Bajakajian, criminal in personam forfeitures 22 are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause, even if, historically, the type of property to be 23 forfeited has been subject to civil in rem forfeiture as "guilty property." In other words, it 24 is the nature of the forfeiture, not the type of property forfeited, that controls whether a 13 1 forfeiture is subject to the Excessive Fines Clause. In this case, defendant argues that, under Bajakajian, the criminal in 2 3 personam forfeiture of her remaining lottery winnings is punitive and, therefore, subject 4 to the Excessive Fines Clause. We agree. The forfeiture in this case shares the 5 characteristics of the forfeiture in Bajakajian, which the Supreme Court held was 6 punitive. First, the state sought, and the trial court ordered, the forfeiture in a criminal 7 proceeding against the defendant personally. Second, the forfeiture was intended to 8 punish the defendant; it could not have been imposed on an innocent owner. ORS 9 131.573; ORS 131.582(9) - (11); ORS 131.588(6)(a). Although, as the state argues, the 10 forfeiture may serve a deterrent purpose, as the Supreme Court stated in Bajakajian, 324 11 US at 329, "[d]eterrence * * * has traditionally been viewed as a goal of punishment[.]" 12 And, third, the forfeiture serves no remedial purpose; it does not compensate the state (or 13 anyone else) for a loss.10 Under the criminal forfeiture statutes, forfeited property vests 14 in the agency that seized the property, ORS 131.556, and the vesting is not contingent on 15 the agency having suffered any loss. The state contends that the forfeiture in this case is distinct from that in 16 17 Bajakajian because it involves the forfeiture of the proceeds of defendant's crimes. 18 According to the state, forfeitures of the proceeds of crimes are never punitive. We 10 To be clear, although we hold that the forfeiture in this case was punitive because it has the same characteristics as the forfeiture in Bajakajian, we are not ruling that those characteristics are required in order for a forfeiture to be punitive. As noted, the Supreme Court has held that civil forfeitures can be punitive. Bajakajian, 524 US at 331 n 6. 14 1 disagree. Under Bajakajian, criminal in personam forfeitures are punitive by virtue of 2 the nature of the proceeding and regardless of the nature of the property. When the state 3 elects to bring such a forfeiture, it is "irrelevant" that the property to be forfeited 4 historically has been subject to forfeiture as guilty property. Bajakajian, 524 US at 333 5 (so holding with respect to instrumentalities). 6 The state acknowledges, as it must under Bajakajian, that the Excessive 7 Fines Clause applies to the forfeiture of instrumentalities. That is, the state acknowledges 8 the possibility that the connection between a defendant's crime and property to be 9 forfeited as an instrumentality of the crime may be so small or distant that forfeiture of 10 the property would violate the Excessive Fines Clause. But, the state argues, that is never 11 the case for the proceeds of a crime. 12 That argument fails because, as with instrumentalities, the connection 13 between a defendant's crime and the proceeds of the crime may be so small or distant that 14 forfeiture of the proceeds would violate the Excessive Fines Clause. If "proceeds" are 15 broadly defined--as they are for the purposes of Oregon's criminal forfeiture statutes-- 16 they can include property that has only a small or distant connection to the defendant's 17 crimes. For example, it might be grossly disproportionate to forfeit a defendant's entire 18 business empire, built over a lifetime, where the defendant's crime was the theft of $1,000 19 used as capital to start the business. Similarly, if a defendant commingled $1,000 of 20 stolen money with $99,000 of legitimate funds to make an investment, it might be 21 disproportionate to forfeit the whole investment. 22 Accordingly, we conclude that, as defendant argues, the Excessive Fines 15 1 Clause applies to the in personam criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of crimes. Having 2 done so, we turn to the question whether the forfeiture in this case violates the Excessive 3 Fines Clause. 4 C. 5 Application of the Excessive Fines Clause Whether a forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause depends on the 6 relationship between the forfeiture and the crime for which it is ordered. Bajakajian, 524 7 US at 334. In order to determine whether a forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines 8 Clause, a court must assess the gravity of the defendant's crime and the severity of the 9 forfeiture and compare the two. Id. If the forfeiture is "grossly disproportional" to the 10 11 gravity of the defendant's crime, then it is unconstitutional. Id. When assessing the gravity of a defendant's crime, courts consider both the 12 general characteristics of the crime and the specific characteristics of the defendant's 13 conduct. Id. at 337-38. Regarding the general characteristics, courts consider the type of 14 crime, that is, whether it is a crime against a person or property, as well as the 15 classification and potential sentences for the crime, which reflect the public's view, as 16 expressed through legislation, of the gravity of the crime. Id. at 338-39, 339 n 14. 17 Regarding the particular characteristics of the crime, courts consider the actual harm 18 risked and caused by the conduct, as well as any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, 19 such as the defendant's motive and criminal history. Id. at 337-39, 338 n 13. 20 When assessing the severity of a defendant's forfeiture, courts consider the 21 amount of the forfeiture and the effect of the forfeiture on the defendant. United States v. 22 Levesque, 546 F3d 78 (1st Cir 2008); see also Browning-Ferris, 492 US at 266-67 16 1 (discussing the history of the Excessive Fines Clause and its purpose of protecting 2 defendants' livelihoods and self-sufficiency). Whether an otherwise proportional fine is 3 excessive can depend on, for example, the financial resources available to a defendant, 4 the other financial obligations of the defendant, and the effect of the fine on the 5 defendant's ability to be self-sufficient. See Bajakajian, 524 US at 335-36. Applying those considerations, defendant argues that the severity of the 6 7 forfeiture of her remaining lottery winnings is grossly disproportional to the gravity of 8 her crimes. 9 As to the gravity of her crimes, defendant argues that they are low- to mid- 10 level felonies, as evidenced by their type, classifications, potential sentences, and crime 11 seriousness rankings. As stated, defendant was convicted of aggravated theft in the first 12 degree and forgery in the first degree, both property crimes, and cheating, a gambling 13 crime. Aggravated theft in the first degree is a Class B felony, punishable by up to 10 14 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. ORS 164.057; ORS 161.605(2); ORS 161.625(1)(c). 15 Forgery in the first degree and cheating are each Class C felonies, punishable by up to 16 five years in prison and a $125,000 fine. ORS 165.013; ORS 167.167; ORS 161.605(3); 17 ORS 161.625(1)(d). Under the sentencing guidelines, which rank the seriousness of 18 crimes on a scale from 1 to 11, defendant's crimes of aggravated theft in the first degree 19 and forgery in the first degree are ranked at level 5, and cheating is ranked at level 2. 20 OAR 213-018-0010(2); OAR 213-017-0007(25); OAR 213-017-0010(29). Under the 21 guidelines, the presumptive sentence for each of the three crimes, for a person, like 22 defendant, whose criminal history category is G, is probation. OAR 213-004-0001; OAR 17 1 213-005-0007. 2 Defendant further argues that the gravity of her crimes is mitigated by the 3 circumstances under which she committed them, the fact that she paid the Visa bill, and 4 her limited criminal history. Defendant asserts that, at the time of the crimes, she was a 5 "single mother living * * * close to the financial edge and she needed to feed her 6 children." She was, in her words, "in desperate circumstances" and "made a foolish 7 choice." Defendant also asserts that "there are no victims in this [case]." She notes that 8 the prosecutor herself informed the trial court at sentencing that "nobody thinks they're 9 the victim and owed approximately $12,000 [for the amounts that defendant charged on 10 the Visa card]." According to defendant, because Cornett was deceased and the Visa bill 11 was paid, "[n]o one suffered any loss at all" and "there are no collateral consequences to 12 anyone." And, finally, defendant asserts that she is "not a professional thief who [steals] 13 identification for a living" and that she "does not fit the class of persons who are usually 14 targeted with this extraordinary type of forfeiture[.]" She asserts that "[e]xtraordinary 15 forfeitures * * * usually involve individuals who are involved in professional criminal 16 enterprises[,] such as drug trafficking, money laundering[,] and racketeering." 17 As to the severity of her punishment, defendant argues that the forfeiture of 18 the lottery winnings is harsh and extraordinary. She points out that the forfeiture far 19 exceeds the maximum statutory fines for her crimes. As mentioned, the maximum fines 20 for aggravated theft in the first degree, forgery in the first degree, and cheating are 21 $250,000, $125,000, and $125,000, respectively, for a total of $500,000. The forfeiture 22 of defendant's remaining lottery winnings--$960,843.77--exceeds the total statutory 18 1 maximum fines for her crimes by more than $460,000. Indeed, as defendant further 2 points out, the forfeiture is nearly twice the maximum fine for murder, which is 3 $500,000.11 ORS 161.625(1)(a). Comparing the gravity of her crimes to the severity of her punishment, 4 5 defendant argues that the forfeiture of the lottery winnings violates the Excessive Fines 6 Clause. She contends that "the penalty imposed by the trial court [through the forfeiture], 7 is unduly harsh, in light of the gravity of defendant's offense." In particular, she contends 8 that "the risk of or actual injury to the public from [her] conduct was zero, while the 9 monetary value of the property subject to * * * forfeiture is one million dollars." 10 In arguing that the forfeiture in this case is excessive, defendant compares 11 the harms risked and caused by her crimes to the amount of the forfeiture. Respectfully, 12 defendant's comparison is incomplete. Whether a punishment is appropriate depends not 13 only on the harm that the defendant risked and caused, but also on the gain that the 14 defendant realized. 11 Defendant is correct that the amount of the forfeiture exceeds the maximum fines for Class B and C felonies under ORS 161.625(1)(c) and (d). However, another subsection of the same statute, ORS 161.625(3), provides that, "[i]f a person has gained money or property through the commission of a felony, then upon conviction thereof the court, in lieu of imposing the fine authorized for the crime under subsection (1) * * * of this section, may sentence the defendant to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding double the amount of the defendant's gain from the commission of the crime." Under that subsection, a court could order defendant to pay two million dollars for her crimes. Thus, contrary to defendant's argument, the forfeiture does not actually exceed what--as a matter of statutory law--a court could impose. 19 1 As a general matter, separating a criminal defendant from the direct 2 proceeds of her crimes is an appropriate--not an excessive--punishment. It serves 3 legitimate retributive and deterrent purposes, and it takes from the defendant only that 4 which she should not have received in the first place. As a punishment, its severity is 5 minimal; it has no effect on the defendant's legitimate financial position. It simply 6 returns the defendant to the position that she would have been in had she not committed 7 her crimes. 8 To illustrate: a judgment that requires a defendant to pay a fine, under 9 circumstances in which the fine must be paid from legally obtained funds, is entirely 10 different from a court order that a defendant forfeit illegally obtained funds. The fine has 11 a negative effect on the defendant's legitimate financial position; the forfeiture does not. 12 Here, defendant's argument that the forfeiture of the lottery winnings is 13 excessive fails to account for the fact that the winnings are the direct proceeds of her 14 crimes. Defendant obtained the lottery ticket--her claim to the lottery prize--as a direct 15 result of her crimes. She purchased the ticket--and more than $11,000 in other goods--by 16 making unauthorized credit card charges that, as established by her theft conviction, she 17 had no intent to pay. Because defendant's lottery winnings are the direct proceeds of her 18 criminal conduct, the forfeiture of the winnings is simply not that severe. It deprives 19 defendant of a net gain from her crimes but does not inflict a net loss. 20 In arguing that the forfeiture in this case is excessive, defendant contends, 21 essentially, that there is a dollar limit on the amount of property that a defendant can be 22 ordered to forfeit for particular criminal conduct, regardless of the amount of property the 20 1 defendant gained from that conduct. We disagree. When assessing the severity of a 2 forfeiture, we must consider not only the amount of the forfeiture, but also the source of 3 the property to be forfeited. And here, that consideration leads to the conclusion that the 4 forfeiture of the lottery winnings is not excessive. 5 We fully recognize that the amount of the forfeiture is extraordinary, but so 6 were defendant's immediate profits from her criminal conduct. The forfeiture is of those 7 very profits. 8 We emphasize that, in this case, the property to be forfeited was obtained 9 solely as a result of defendant's criminal conduct. It is not the product of a commingling 10 of legal and illegal resources. Given the broad definition of the "proceeds of prohibited 11 conduct," which includes both direct and indirect proceeds, there may be cases where the 12 forfeiture of the proceeds of a crime violates the Excessive Fines Clause, for example, 13 when the forfeiture is of property that has only a small or distant connection to the crime. 14 But this is not such a case. 15 Affirmed. 21

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.