Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2021-00018088-CU-AF-CTL, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 20, 2023

12/21/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Asset forfeiture Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00018088-CU-AF-CTL THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $41,050.00 IN US CURRENCY CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING The People of the State of California's motion for default judgment of forfeiture is CONTINUED.

The motion is supported by the Declaration of Nancy Zuniga-Ryan. The declaration states that it is based on her 'own personal knowledge and/or is derived from [her] review of the police reports and records created with regard the seizure of the Defendant Property, described as $71,950 in U.S.

currency, that is the subject of the within asset forfeiture proceeding.' The property at issue in this proceeding is $41,050, not $71,950. However, more pressing is the fact that there is no indication that Zuniga-Ryan was involved in any of the underlying events or otherwise has any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration. Rather, the declaration appears be based solely on hearsay, which calls into question the trustworthiness of the facts stated.

The People argue that their burden on this motion is to establish a prima facie case, which they equate to mean a showing of probable cause. The People then argue that because they need only show probable cause, hearsay evidence is necessarily admissible. Thus, the People reason the Zuniga-Ryan declaration is sufficient. As outlined below, the court is not persuaded.

As to the first premise, 'probable cause' and a 'prima facie case' are not coextensive. 'Probable cause' is 'defined as a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.' (People v. $48,715 U.S. Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1517, emphasis added; People v. Superior Court (Moraza) (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 592, 598.) A 'prima facie case,' on the other hand, is defined as a 'party's production of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party's favor.' (Black's Law Dict. (11th ed. 2019) p. 1141; accord People v. Van Gordon (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 634, 636–637.) Notably, the Legislature distinguished between these two terms in the forfeiture statutes. Whereas a defendant may move for the return of the property 'on the grounds that there is not probable cause to believe that the property is forfeitable,' the People may move for a default judgment only if they establish a 'prima facie case in support of its petition for forfeiture.' (Compare Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11488.4, subd. (h)(1) with 11488.5, subd. (b)(1); see Roy v. Superior Court (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1352 ['Ordinarily, where the Legislature uses a different word or phrase in one part of a statute than it does in other sections or in a similar statute concerning a related subject, it must be presumed that the Legislature intended a different meaning'].) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3049210  32 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS $41,050.00 IN US  37-2021-00018088-CU-AF-CTL As to the second premise, the People do not cite any hearsay exception that applies to forfeiture proceedings. (Compare Pen. Code, § 872, subd. (b) [specifically permitted first-layer hearsay in preliminary hearings].) Rather, the rule against hearsay has been held to apply in forfeiture proceedings. (See generally Jauregi v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 931, 939–943.) The court additionally notes that the Code of Civil Procedure is generally applicable to forfeiture proceedings. (Id. at § 11488.5, subd. (c)(3).) That code requires declarations submitted in support of applications for default judgment to be based on personal knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd.

(d).) The hearing is therefore continued to February 9, 2024 at 10:30am to allow the People an opportunity to submit declarations on personal knowledge. The People may also supplement their motion with any other competent evidence in support of their prima facie case, which although not required, may include a record of conviction in any related criminal proceeding. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.5, subd.

(b)(1).) The People are ordered to mail notice of the continued hearing, and any supplemental briefing and evidence, to Osvaldo Barrera Vazquez, Ofelia Vazquez Barrera, Ivonne Burgarin, and Hector Manuel Moreno-Gutierrez at their last known addresses. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.5, subd. (c)(3); Code Civ. Proc., § 587.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3049210  32