State/Klamath County v. Hershey

An animal forfeiture claim is most akin to a lien foreclosure claim in general, which was not entitled to a jury trial at the time of the adoption of the Oregon Constitution, and does not include the kind of fact-finding that would customarily be tried to a jury.

Respondent appealed the trial court’s forfeiture order of his animals to the Klamath Humane Society following failure to pay a bond for the animals’ expenses.  Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a jury trial on the petition, under ORS 167.347, for the forfeiture of the seized animals.  On appeal, Respondent argued that, because a right to a jury trial exists in forfeiture cases, he was entitled to a jury trial.  In response, the State argued a forfeiture under ORS 167.347 is not analogous to forfeiture at common law, since a forfeiture under ORS 167.347 is not a punishment for illegal activity, and therefore no right to a jury trial exists.  Under ORS 167.347, animal shelters caring for impounded animals may file a petition in the criminal case for the defendant to put up a bond to pay for the animals’ care; if the bond is unpaid, the animals are forfeited.  The Court concluded that an animal forfeiture claim is most akin to a lien foreclosure claim in general, which was not entitled to a jury trial at the time of the adoption of the Oregon Constitution, and it does not include the kind of fact-finding that would customarily be tried to a jury. The Court reasoned the forfeiture is not a punishment and the defendant is given the opportunity to post a bond, as such, because the proceeding does not require a factual finding, legal questions and equitable determinations are usually made by courts.  Thus, the Court held the Respondent was not entitled to a jury trial.  Affirmed.