1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 475 S.E.2d
  5. 475 S.E.2d 907 (1996)
 

MURPHY v. STATE

No. S96G0588.

475 S.E.2d 907 (1996)

267 Ga. 120

MURPHY v. The STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

September 23, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David S. West, Bruce S. Harvey, Atlanta, for Murphy.

Thomas W. Hayes, Special A.D.A., Prosecuting Atty's Council of Ga., Smyrna, Daniel J. Porter, D.A., Lawrenceville, Gary Drew Bergman, Prosecuting Atty's Council of Ga., Smyrna, Nicholas A. Lotito, Davis Zipperman Kirschenbaum & Lotito, Aimee R. Maxwell, Georgia Indigent Defense Council, Donald Franklin Samuel, Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C., Atlanta, for State.

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 the Double Jeopardy Clause. The federal test to be applied in assessing a forfeiture statute is two-fold. The first inquiry is whether...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases