Murphree v. State (854 S.W.2d 193, 1993)

OPINION

HEDGES, Justice.

Appellant Doyle Murphree appeals a judgment of forfeiture under the Motor Vehicle Salvage Dealers Act. We must interpret the burden of proof required under the forfeiture provisions of that statute. Did the State’s proof that appellant failed to maintain statutorily required records on the origin of component car parts suffice? Or did the State have the greater burden to show that the seized items had actually been stolen or altered? We affirm in part and reverse and render in part.

At the time his property was seized, appellant was doing business as D & B Auto Resales, purchasing wrecked vehicles and rebuilding them for resale. On January 23, 1990, the Galveston Sheriffs Department, Organized Crime Unit, conducted an administrative inspection of appellant’s business in accordance with Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6687-2 (Vernon Supp.1993). The officers inspected approximately 100 motor vehicles and parts of motor vehicles. When asked to document his ownership, appellant produced titles to the vehicles but did not have an inventory of component parts as required under article 6687-2. The officers seized eight vehicles, one engine, vehicle doors, door panels, seats, and various component parts as authorized by article 6687-2(j). The State then brought multiple foreclosure actions under the Certificate of Title Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6687-1 (Vernon 1977). Six of the actions have been consolidated on appeal.

The trial court rendered judgment and ordered forfeiture of the property under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6687-2 (Vernon Supp.1993), which governs “motor vehicle salvage dealers.” Article 6687 — 2