Legal Opinion

Murphy v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 23, 1996No. S96G0588PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hines, Justice.

We granted certiorari to consider whether a forfeiture proceeding under OCGA § 16-13-49 constitutes punishment for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis under the Federal Constitution.1 We conclude that it does not.

Civil forfeitures generally do not constitute punishment under *121the Double Jeopardy Clause. The federal test to be applied in assessing a forfeiture statute is two-fold. The first inquiry is whether the proceeding is intended to be criminal or civil. The second is whether, by clearest proof, the proceeding is so punitive in fact that it may not legitimately be…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State of Ga. v. AlfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994
  2. Thorp v. State of Ga.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1994
  3. Murphy v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1996

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Sutton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1996
  2. Bettis v. State of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  3. In the Interest of B. G.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  4. Rojas v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  5. Dorsey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API