One 1979 Cadillac Seville v. State

BISHOP, Judge. After a hearing, the Circuit Court for Cecil County ordered the forfeiture of one 1979 Cadillac Seville Serial No. 6S69899473348, owned by Michael Siano. The issue before this Court is whether before forfeiture of a motor vehicle under Md.Ann.Code, art. 27, § 297 (1982 Repl. Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.), Md. Cts. & Jud.

Proc. Code Ann. § 10-1001 (1984 Repl. Vol.) requires evidence of a chemical analysis to prove that particular substances found in the subject vehicle were controlled dangerous substances. For the reasons stated infra, we hold that it does not.

FACTS With minor editing the following is the Agreed Statement of Facts: According to the petition, [the Siano] vehicle had been utilized in drug smuggling activities, pursuant to Art. 27, Sec. 286A; and possession of controlled substances in sufficient quantity to reasonably indicate, under all circumstances, an intent to distribute, pursuant to Art. 27, Sec. 286. A hearing was held on the petition by Rollins, Jr., J. The evidence for the State was elicited through Maryland State Police Corporal Charles K. Glassman. Material portions of his testimony were: [W]hile patrolling northbound on interstate highway 95 in Cecil County, Maryland, he made a lawful stop of the subject vehicle for motor vehicle violations. At that time, ⁴⁶⁹ Michael Siano, the driver of the car, advised the Corporal that the car belonged to him and that he had just purchased it from a friend in Florida.

During the course of Corpora] Glassman’s routine inquiry of Siano, he became suspicious. He then duly asked and was granted permission by Siano to search the automobile. With respect to the Corporal’s testimony in paragraphs 1 and 2, which follow, Defense counsel objected to its admission into evidence on the ground that it was inadmissible to support the controlled dangerous substances allegations unless it is accompanied by a chemical analysis, pursuant to Courts and Judicial Proceedings Art. 10-1001. The trial court overruled the objections. 1.

Glassman testified that the above search revealed substances which he suspected to be marijuana, and cocaine. 2. Also Glassman testified that he conversed with Siano at the State Police barracks and that Siano advised him that the ... substances were marijuana and cocaine; that Siano had been given $3,000.00 by a friend of his in Florida to make delivery of these substances; that he had gone to his friend’s apartment where he had picked up the cocaine and subsequently concealed it under the truck carpet. The Defendant offered no evidence. At the end of the State’s case, the Defendant’s attorney maintained that the evidence standing alone was insufficient to establish that the alleged substances were controlled since there was no chemical analysis of the substances in evidence.

The State maintained that the evidence was sufficient, and an analysis was unnecessary since it would rely on the Defendant’s statement to the police officer. The trial court found that the procedure for submitting an analysis is strict, but that the State was not obliged to submit one. It then found the evidence before it suffi ⁴⁷⁰ cient to find that the substances were controlled, and entered a civil judgment forfeiting the motor vehicle. With respect to whether the State had met its burden, the Court said, “I’m satisfied, gentlemen, as I said before, completely satisfied that obviously the car was transporting the items, the drugs that have been testified to.

As far as I am concerned, the State has met its burden very easily on this, on what evidence I have before me. I am prepared to rule at this point that the automobile should be forfeited. I think the evidence is clear it was used for transportation of a significant amount and I think they have met all of the criteria of the statute. So I’ll order the forfeiture.” DISCUSSION Appellant argues that the admission of, Mr. Siano that the substances found in his car were marijuana and cocaine was insufficient to prove that the items were controlled dangerous substances as defined in the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, Md. Ann. Code, art. 27, § 276-302 (1982 Repl.Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.), and that a chemical analysis of the substances was required under § 10-1001.

Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Annotated § 10-1001 provides: For the purpose of establishing that physical evidence in a criminal or civil proceeding constitutes a particular controlled dangerous substance defined under Article 27 of this Code, a report signed by the chemist or analyst who performed the test or tests as to its nature is prima facie evidence