Commonwealth v. Doebler

• Decision Date: 17 June 2021
• Docket Number: 2020-SC-0025-DG
• Citation: 626 S.W.3d 611
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant v. Alisha DOEBLER, Appellee

626 S.W.3d 611

COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant

v.Alisha DOEBLER, Appellee

2020-SC-0025-DG

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

JUNE 17, 2021

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Daniel J. Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky, Christopher Henry, Assistant Attorney General.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Joshua Michael Reho, Louisville Metro Public Defender's Office.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE KELLER

The Commonwealth appeals the Court of Appeals' reversal of the Jefferson Circuit Court's order that Appellee, Alisha J. Doebler, forfeit $3,759 in cash that law enforcement officials seized the day Doebler and her co-defendant, Jason Lankford, were arrested. The Court of Appeals held that the Commonwealth failed to establish slight traceability of the funds to the drug trafficking activities. Therefore, the trial court's forfeiture order was erroneous. Having reviewed the record in conjunction with all applicable legal authority, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the Jefferson Circuit Court's forfeiture order.

I. FACTS

The Jefferson County Grand Jury indicted Doebler and Lankford for complicity to traffic in a controlled substance, first degree, schedule II methamphetamine two grams or more; complicity to illegal possession of a controlled substance, first degree, schedule I heroin; and complicity to illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia. The indictments resulted from officers responding to a motel fire alarm on March 14, 2017. Upon arrival, a motel employee informed the officers that a female had been reported stealing clothing from motel guests and was in room 226. Officers went to room 226, encountered Doebler and Lankford, and discovered drugs in the room. Upon their arrest, officers seized drugs, various cellular telephones, a digital scale, a "loaded syringe," and $3,759 in cash from Doebler's purse. The subject of this appeal is the forfeiture order regarding the $3,759 seized from Doebler's purse.

Lankford eventually entered a guilty plea to trafficking methamphetamine, less than two grams; possession of heroin; and possession of drug paraphernalia. In his plea colloquy, Lankford admitted to the following facts regarding his arrest:

On March 14, 2017 in Jefferson County, Kentucky, officers were dispatched on a fire alarm issue at a motel. While on scene, a motel employee stated a female had been seen stealing clothes from tenants and was at Room 226. Upon contact, officers found [Lankford] with less than 2 grams of methamphetamine packaged for sale, a baggie of heroin, and a digital scale.

Lankford did not mention Doebler in the plea, nor did he testify at Doebler's subsequent forfeiture hearing. Additionally, when the court accepted Lankford's plea in this case, it accepted his plea in a separate, unrelated indictment for trafficking in controlled substances.

Doebler entered a guilty plea to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia for the syringe, and the Commonwealth dismissed her remaining charges. Doebler's plea acknowledged her rights and agreed to the following facts:

On March 14, 2017, officers were dispatched on a fire alarm issue at a motel. While on scene, a motel employee stated a female had been seen stealing clothes from tenants and was at Room 226. Upon contact, officers found [Doebler] was in possession of a syringe.

The trial court accepted Doebler's plea and sentenced her to twelve months' imprisonment, conditionally discharged for two years. The guilty plea did not include an agreement as to the disposition of the cash recovered from Doebler's purse at the time of her arrest. The Commonwealth requested a forfeiture hearing pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute ("KRS") 218A.410(1)(j) seeking forfeiture of all the cash recovered from Doebler.

At the conclusion of Doebler's plea, and after a short recess, the trial court reconvened to conduct the forfeiture hearing. The forfeiture hearing began with the trial court directing Doebler's counsel to begin the defendant's presentation of evidence. Without objection, defense counsel called Doebler to the stand as its first witness. Doebler testified that the money in question resulted from the closure of her late father's PNC bank account the day before her arrest. Her father's account had approximately $8,000 in it, which she and her brother split. Defense counsel then introduced into evidence certified bank and probate records supporting Doebler's statements.

Doebler explained that she had spent approximately $200 of the money the previous day on jewelry shortly after receiving it. This explanation addressed the discrepancy between the sum received from PNC and the balance confiscated in the motel room. The confiscated cash consisted of mostly $100-dollar bills, still in a bank envelope inside Doebler's purse. She testified that she intended to deposit the balance in her account on the day of her arrest. Doebler asserted that the money had nothing to do with any drug trafficking activity.

On cross-examination, Doebler reiterated that the money was her share of her father's estate settlement. She emphasized that she had received the money the prior afternoon, and after accompanying her brother to deposit his portion in his bank, had spent approximately $200 to purchase jewelry the prior evening. The Commonwealth asked Doebler whether at 6:30 in the morning she was in a motel room with Jason Lankford and whether in that room were approximately thirty-nine grams of methamphetamine and some small bindles of heroin. In response, Doebler stated, "I reckon. But I didn't even know."¹ The Commonwealth pressed Doebler about the nature and quantity of drugs discovered in the motel room and asked whether she remembered the officer finding the baggie of methamphetamine on a table next to the bed. Doebler responded, "I reckon, yeah."

The Commonwealth then inquired about the scale with drug residue. Doebler continued to deny knowledge of the nature of the drugs or whether Lankford was packaging them for sale and maintained that the room was not her room and that the drugs were not her drugs. She generally acknowledged that police found drugs in the room and a scale with residue on it but stated she did not know whether the residue was drugs. When asked, Doebler admitted she pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia based on the syringe officers discovered on a table in the room. However, she denied that she was in Lankford's room to traffic drugs or that she planned to use the money in her possession to buy drugs. The Commonwealth asked, "[s]o you just ended up in a motel room with a bunch of drugs, syringe, and digital scale?" Doebler responded that she was there to purchase a cellular phone with some of the money and planned to go from there to her bank to deposit the rest.

The next witness to testify was Joshua, Doebler's brother. Prior to Joshua's testimony the Commonwealth told the court they were willing to stipulate to the fact that Doebler and her brother received an inheritance. Despite the Commonwealth's stipulation, defense counsel asked to be permitted to present Joshua's brief testimony which the court permitted. Joshua corroborated Doebler's testimony that they had received funds from closing their father's bank account on March 13, 2017. He confirmed that he and Doebler split the funds amounting to a little less than $4,000 each. The Commonwealth did not cross-examine Joshua. The court asked counsel if Doebler had any other evidence to present, to which counsel indicated they had no further witnesses or evidence, only final argument. The Commonwealth never called any witnesses.

Defense counsel summarized Doebler's argument, stating it was the defense's understanding that KRS 218A.410 creates a rebuttable presumption that when money is found in close proximity to drugs, the money is forfeitable. Counsel believed Doebler had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption that the money was in any way tied to drug trafficking. He argued that nothing in Doebler's plea indicated a tie to trafficking, that Lankford's plea never implicated Doebler in any way to his trafficking, and that the money was in crisp hundred-dollar bills, denominations not typically associated with trafficking activities. Defense counsel stated, "[i]t was a fantastic coincidence no doubt," but that Doebler had presented exactly the type of evidence the statute envisions to rebut any presumption.

The Commonwealth argued the proximity of the money to Lankford's drugs, combined with Doebler's plea regarding the paraphernalia, entitled it to the statute's presumption of forfeiture. The Commonwealth contended Doebler had failed to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Notwithstanding the evidence that Doebler presented as to where the money originated from, it becomes forfeitable once it becomes connected to drug trafficking.

Again, defense counsel countered that the Commonwealth had failed to proffer any evidence tying Doebler's money to drug trafficking. Lankford's plea did not implicate Doebler. Her plea was to possession of paraphernalia, not to any trafficking offense. Defense counsel emphasized the Commonwealth's failure to call witnesses or introduce any evidence supporting traceability between the money and the drug trafficking activity in question. Counsel contended that the Commonwealth asked the court to speculate why Doebler was in the room without offering any evidence.

Before adjourning, the court summarized the parties’ arguments. The court stated that its understanding of Doebler's argument was that the source of the funds was the primary determiner of forfeitability and the evidence presented showed the money was not the proceeds of any drug activity. The defense also argued that the Commonwealth had failed to adequately tie the cash to drug transactions. On the other hand, the court summarized the Commonwealth's position as conceding the origin of the money but focusing on the statute's provisions that permitted forfeiture of funds intended to purchase...