Filed 6/22/26; Modified and Certified for Pub. 7/10/26 (order attached)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, C104122
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. STK-CV-UA-F-
v. 2020-0006241)
$379,744 UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant;
CHRISTIAN VALLE et al.
Defendants and Appellants.
Claimants and appellants Christian Valle, Yessina Vaca, and Jesus Vaca appeal
from a judgment forfeiting all but $829 of $379,744 in United States currency seized as
connected to the illegal sale of narcotics. 1 Claimants contend on appeal the judgment as
to Jesus must be reversed because special verdicts returned by the jury were
irreconcilably inconsistent. We agree and will reverse the judgment as to Jesus only and
remand for a new trial.
1 Due to their shared surname, we will refer to Yessina Vaca and Jesus Vaca by their
first names.
1
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
I. Forfeiture Petition and Opposition
On June 10, 2020, law enforcement seized $379,744 in United States currency
(seized currency) during a search of a residence on Progress Way in Stockton. Two days
later, the People filed criminal complaints against Valle and Yessina (who lived in the
searched residence), alleging possession of controlled substances for sale. On June 22,
the People notified Valle and Yessina, as well as non-claimant Rita Arcos (Arcos), of
nonjudicial forfeiture proceedings regarding the seized currency. On July 23, claimants
jointly filed a verified claim asserting a lawful interest in the seized currency and
requesting that it not be forfeited.
On September 17, the People filed a petition seeking forfeiture of the seized
currency. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11469 et seq.) 2 The petition alleged that the seized
currency was subject to forfeiture because it was furnished or intended to be furnished in
exchange for a controlled substance, traceable to such an exchange, or used or intended to
be used to facilitate narcotics trafficking. (§ 11470, subd. (f).)
The parties agreed to a stay of discovery in the forfeiture action pending resolution
of the related criminal proceedings. Following resolution of the criminal proceedings, the
forfeiture action proceeded to a jury trial.
II. Trial Evidence of the Seizure and Narcotics Activity
In November 2018, a law enforcement officer conducted a traffic stop of an SUV
driven by Yessina. During a consent search of the SUV, the officer found a backpack
containing a large amount of United States currency in mixed denominations, bundled in
stacks with rubber bands, and sealed in plastic bags. The officer did not find any
controlled substances in the SUV and did not know the source of the currency.
2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
2
On June 10, 2020, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at
Yessina’s and Valle’s residence on Progress Way, and at Jesus’s (Yessina’s father)
residence on Searchlight Avenue, both in Stockton. During the search of the Progress
Way residence, officers found $379,744 in mixed denominations in various containers
and rooms, including $829 in a mason jar found in a children’s bedroom, and money
counting machines. Additional evidence of narcotics sales was found in the residence,
including pills possibly containing fentanyl, a digital scale, a vacuum sealer with
compatible bags, latex gloves, and sandwich bags. An officer testified at trial that he
believed the seized currency constituted proceeds from illegal narcotics sales and would
be used in future narcotics transactions, although he could not connect any of the seized
currency to any particular narcotics transaction.
During the search of the Searchlight Avenue residence, officers found eight
firearms in Jesus’s bedroom, including two AR-15-style rifles, an SKS rifle, an AK-47-
style pistol, a .45-caliber pistol, two .38-caliber revolvers, and a .380-caliber pistol, and
magazines and ammunition. Approximately $5,000 in mixed United States and Mexican
currency was found but not seized.
Jesus was interviewed at the time of the search with the assistance of a Spanish
interpreter, although the interviewing officer observed as the interview progressed that
Jesus was responding in English, and appeared to understand and speak English. Jesus
asserted that two of the revolvers found in the search belonged to family members who
had left them at his house, and that his son owned three guns, but he denied knowledge of
the remaining firearms. Jesus said his daughters and Valle lived at the Progress Way
residence but that he rarely went there, and the only possession he kept there was a car.
The interviewing officer asked him, “So, if there was like four million dollars over there,
that- that’s not yours? There’s no money over there that belongs to you?” Jesus
responded, “No, no money. No.”
3
More than one year later, on July 22, 2021, another search warrant was executed at
a self-storage unit rented to Arcos, who also lived at the Progress Way residence. The
self-storage unit contained a bag with 222.4 grams of a substance appearing to be
methamphetamine, three bags with 1,021.4, 105.6, and 0.1 grams of a substance
appearing to be heroin, cellophane wrapping commonly used as packaging for narcotics,
and a digital scale. At trial, an officer opined that both substances were possessed for
sale.
On that same date, officers searched the Progress Way residence. A key to the
self-storage unit was found in the residence. Arcos subsequently produced a second key
to the self-storage unit and sought to take “full responsibility” for the substances found
inside. A money counting machine and luxury consumer goods were also in the
residence, and a bag containing approximately one pound of marijuana was found in an
SUV registered to Yessina that was parked in front of the residence.
III. Evidence of Jesus’s Innocent Ownership of the Seized Currency
Valle and Yessina testified that $100,000 of the seized currency belonged to Valle.
Yessina added that $20,000 of the seized currency was hers, she was holding about
$4,000 for Arcos from her tax return, the $829 in the mason jar was her 10-year-old son’s
savings and birthday gifts from his family, and the remainder belonged to Jesus. Both
Valle and Yessina acknowledged that they had responded to the People’s interrogatories
that all the currency belonged to them.
Jesus testified that approximately $250,000 to $280,000 of the seized currency
belonged to him. He earned money by growing agave in Mexico and selling it to major
tequila manufacturers, and he also installed air conditioning for a construction company. 3
3 Jesus added that he owned a check-cashing business for a period of time, and in the
course of running that business he used the money counting machine that was found
during the 2020 search of the Progress Way residence.
4
He maintained a modest balance in a bank account in Mexico and approximately $30,000
in an American bank account but kept most of his assets in cash. Jesus stated he brought
approximately $400,000 to Yessina’s house on Progress Way because he frequently
traveled to Mexico, and his house on Searchlight Avenue was small and in an unsafe
neighborhood. He then gifted $40,000 to his children and would periodically “bring
some and take some.” Finally, Jesus testified that he did not suspect or believe that the
money he left at Yessina’s house was or would be used in narcotics transactions.
Jesus also testified about his statement to law enforcement that he kept no money
at Yessina’s house. He recalled that he understood some, but not all, of what the
interviewing officer said to him in English during the interview, and he had difficulty
speaking English. He recalled being asked whether he had $4 million at Yessina’s house,
to which he responded that he did not, and he confirmed that, had he been asked how
much money he kept at Yessina’s house, he would have reported $260,000 to $280,000.
IV. Verdicts and Judgment
On February 14, 2025, the jury returned completed verdict forms as to each
claimant. The verdict form as to Jesus, which we discuss in greater detail later, included
three questions. The first question asked: “Does the jury find that Jesus Vaca has an
ownership interest in the seized $379,744?” The jury answered, “Yes.” The second
question asked: “Do you find that any of the seized $379,744 funds related to Jesus Vaca
are innocent funds or that he did not have knowledge or did have consent to the illegal
use of his funds?” 4 The jury answered, “Yes” to that question as well. The third
4 It appears the clerk misspoke when reading the question answered by the jury. The
verdict form read: “Do you find that any of the seized $379,744.00 funds related to Jesus
Vaca are innocent funds or that he did not have knowledge or did not consent to the
illegal use of his funds?” (Italics added.)
5
question asked: “What amount, if any, of the $379,744 should be returned to Jesus
Vaca?” The jury answered, “Zero dollars.”
As to Yessina, the jury found that some amount of the seized currency was
innocent, or she did not have knowledge of or consent to the illegal use of the funds, and
determined that $829 should be returned to her. 5 As to Valle, the jury found that none of
the seized funds were innocent funds, or that he lacked knowledge of or did not consent
to the illegal use of the funds.
On March 10, the trial court entered judgment forfeiting all but $829 of the seized
currency. The court then denied several posttrial motions filed by claimants, including
motions for new trial, additur, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Jesus argued in
part that a partial new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict was required because
the verdict was against the law and irreconcilable. Specifically, Jesus contended that
once the jury found that he had an ownership interest in the seized currency, and that
some portion of those funds were either innocent, or that he did not have knowledge of or
consent to the illegal use of the funds, the jury was required to return $260,000 to him
pursuant to section 11488.5. 6
In opposition, the People argued in part that the verdict should be upheld because
it was supported by substantial evidence. The People also took the position that the
verdict could be reconciled because the jury necessarily found some portion of the $829
returned to Yessina’s son to be a gift of innocent money from Jesus.
5 As we stated earlier, there was evidence that $829 of the seized currency was found in
a mason jar belonging to Yessina’s minor son.
6 Section 11488.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) require the return of claimed funds where the
claimant has an ownership interest in the funds, and where the government has not
proved by clear and convincing evidence that the claimant knew that the seized funds
would be used for a purpose for which forfeiture is permitted and consented to that use.
6
As to Jesus’s challenge to the verdict form, the trial court ruled: “The record will
reflect that all jury instructions and verdict forms were discussed with counsel in open
court and agreed upon by counsel without objection.”
Claimants timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Claimants contend reversal is required as to Jesus because the jury’s verdicts were
irreconcilably inconsistent. According to claimants, the jury’s finding that none of the
seized currency should be released to Jesus irreconcilably conflicted with its findings that
Jesus had an ownership interest in the seized currency that was at least partially innocent
or lacking knowledge of or consent to the illegal use of the currency. Disagreeing, the
People argue that the jury’s findings were reconcilable because the jury could have found
some portion of the seized currency to be innocent funds merely “related to” Jesus, but
not owned by him, and therefore Jesus was not entitled to return of currency he did not
own. We conclude the verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent requiring reversal of the
judgment and remand for retrial as to Jesus only.
I. Forfeiture Proceedings
“A forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action in which property is considered
the defendant, on the fiction that the property is the guilty party. [Citations.] Statutes
imposing forfeitures are disfavored and are to be ‘ “strictly construed in favor of the
persons against whom they are sought to be imposed.” ’ ” (People v. Superior Court
(Plascencia) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 409, 418 (Plascencia); accord Ramirez v. Tulare
County District Attorney’s Office (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 911, 917.)
Under California’s drug asset forfeiture laws (§ 11469 et seq.), property connected
with certain unlawful drug activity may be forfeited to the state or local government.
(Ramirez v. Tulare County District Attorney’s Office, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 917.)
“[C]urrency is subject to forfeiture if it is furnished or intended to be furnished in
exchange for a controlled substance, traceable to such an exchange, or used or intended to
7
be used to facilitate trafficking in, or the manufacture of, various controlled substances.”
(Plascencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 419, citing § 11470, subd. (f).)
When a governmental agency files a petition of forfeiture in the superior court
(§ 11488.4), a claimant is entitled to a jury trial at which the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure generally apply. (Plascencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 419, citing
§ 11488.5, subds. (a), (c)(2) & (3).) “A claimant in a civil forfeiture proceeding ‘ “must
show he [or she] has a recognizable legal or equitable interest in the seized property” in
order to establish standing.’ ” (Plascencia, at p. 420.) Once standing has been
established, to obtain forfeiture of $40,000 or more in currency, as here, the government
must prove by clear and convincing evidence that “the owner of any interest in the seized
property consented to the use of the property with knowledge that it would be or was
used for a purpose for which forfeiture is permitted.” (§§ 11488.5, subd. (d)(1), 11488.4,
subd. (i)(4).) “If the court or jury finds that the seized property was used for a purpose
for which forfeiture is permitted, but does not find that a person claiming an interest
therein, to which the court has determined he or she is entitled, had actual knowledge that
the seized property would be or was used for a purpose for which forfeiture is permitted
and consented to that use, the court shall order the seized property released to the
claimant.” (Former § 11488.5, subd. (e).)
II. Verdict Forms Background
The parties disagree about how to properly characterize the verdict returned by the
jury, which, as we will explain, affects our standard of review. Accordingly, we begin
with an overview of the types of verdicts and the standard of review for claims of
inconsistent verdicts applicable to each.
“The verdict of a jury is either general or special.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 624.) “The
distinction between a general and special verdict is that under the former a jury
‘pronounce[s] generally upon all or any of the issues,’ while the latter is one ‘by which
the jury find the facts only, leaving the judgment to the court.’ ” (Textron Financial
8
Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1073, quoting Code
Civ. Proc., § 624, disapproved on other grounds by Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57
Cal.4th 364, 382.) While a special verdict requires the jury to determine every
controverted fact issue, a general verdict implies findings in favor of the prevailing party.
(Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1242.)
In addition to general and special verdicts, a jury may be called upon to return a
general verdict with special findings or interrogatories, in which the jury returns a general
verdict and answers specific questions of fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 625.) The purpose of
such special findings is to determine “ ‘ “whether the general verdict is or is not against
law.” ’ ” (Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 303.)
“ ‘Inconsistent verdicts are “ ‘against the law’ ” ’ and are grounds for a new trial.”
(City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co., Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th
668, 682 (Horton).) Our standard of review of a claim of inconsistent verdicts depends
on the type of verdict returned. (Id. at p. 678.) Where special findings of fact conflict
with a general verdict, the special findings control the general verdict. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 625.) However, “ ‘ “the general verdict will stand unless the facts found by the jury in
answer to special interrogatories are so clearly antagonistic to it as to be absolutely
irreconcilable, the conflict being such as to be beyond the possibility of being removed
by any evidence admissible under the issues, so that both the general verdict and special
findings cannot stand.” ’ ” (Curtis v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation
(1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 668, 689.)
The rule of reconciliation between inconsistent special findings and a general
verdict does not apply to inconsistencies between special verdicts. (Horton, supra,
126 Cal.App.4th at p. 679.) A special verdict is inconsistent if there is no possibility of
reconciling its findings with each other. (Markow v. Rosner (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1027,
1048.) “A court reviewing a special verdict does not infer findings in favor of the
prevailing party [citation], and there is no presumption in favor of upholding a special
9
verdict when the inconsistency is between two questions in a special verdict.” (Zagami,
Inc. v. James A. Crone, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1092.) On appeal, we review
a special verdict de novo to determine whether its findings are inconsistent. (Cumbre,
Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1388.)
Where there are inconsistencies between or among answers within a special
verdict or irreconcilable findings, “both or all the questions are equally against the law,”
and a reviewing court is not permitted to choose between inconsistent answers. (Horton,
supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 682.) In the circumstance of an inconsistent special verdict,
the proper remedy is to order a new trial. (Missakian v. Amusement Industry, Inc. (2021)
69 Cal.App.5th 630, 655.)
III. Additional Procedural Background
On February 10, 2025, during trial but outside the jury’s presence, the parties and
the trial court discussed the verdict forms. As to Jesus, the court indicated that the verdict
form should be drafted to require the jury to answer three questions in sequential order.
First, the jury was to determine whether Jesus had any ownership interest in the seized
currency, which the court noted was a “threshold question of standing.” The court then
stated as to the second question: “I think we should ask on the special verdict form, ‘Do
you find that any of the seized funds are innocent funds? If yes, answer Question
Number 3.’ ” “And then whatever remains after subtracting innocent funds must be
deemed forfeitable by operation of law because [the jury] find[s] the remaining funds are
not innocent funds by their verdict, by their special verdict.” The court subsequently
clarified that if the jury responded to the second question that any of the seized currency
was “innocent,” then the third question should require the jury to determine “[h]ow
much, you know, the amount.”
Claimants’ counsel argued that the issue was not whether the seized currency was
innocent, but rather whether Jesus knew the currency was connected to narcotics
transactions, and therefore the verdict form should ask the jury to determine whether
10
Jesus knew the funds were or could be used in connection with the sale of controlled
substances. The People agreed that the seized currency would be subject to forfeiture if
the currency were innocent, but Jesus knew it was connected with narcotics transactions.
The court agreed that the second question of the verdict form should ask whether Jesus
knew the seized currency was connected to narcotics transactions. The parties agreed to
submit written verdict forms the following morning.
Claimants’ counsel submitted a proposed verdict form that included six questions:
(1) “Does Claimant Jesus Vaca have an ownership interest in the $379,744?”; (2) “How
much of the $379,744 belongs to Claimant Jesus Vaca?”; (3) “Do you find that
Claimant Jesus Vaca’s funds are subject to forfeiture as funds linked to the sale of
controlled substance(s)?”; (4) “Did Claimant Jesus Vaca consent to the use of his funds
with knowledge that it would be used in connection with the sale of a controlled
substance?”; (5) “Do you find that innocent funds belonging to Claimant Jesus Vaca are
comingled with tainted funds?”; and (6) “What amount of funds belonging to Claimant
Jesus Vaca do you find are directly traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance?”
On February 11, again outside the jury’s presence, the trial court rejected
claimants’ proposed verdict form as to Jesus on the basis that it did not comply with the
law of forfeiture, was too lengthy, and would “giv[e] rise to some confusion among the
jurors.” The court reiterated that the verdict form should ask whether Jesus had an
ownership interest in the seized currency, and if so, whether “the funds are innocent
funds or he had no knowledge or consent.”
The verdict form provided to the jury asked three questions related to Jesus. First,
question No. 1 asked: “Does the jury find Jesus Vaca has an ownership interest in the
seized $379,744.00?” If the jury found he did, the verdict form instructed the jury to
answer question No. 2, which asked: “Do you find that any of the seized $379,744.00
funds related to Jesus Vaca are innocent funds or that he did not have knowledge or did
not consent to the illegal use of his funds?” If yes, the verdict form instructed the jury to
11
answer question No. 3, which asked: “What amount, if any, of the $379,744.00 should
be returned to Jesus Vaca?”
The trial court explained to the jury the verdict form relating to Jesus, as follows:
“Question Number 1, does the jury find Jesus Vaca has an ownership interest in the
seized money? And then you would check -- the foreperson would check yes or no.…
‘If the jury finds Jesus Vaca has an ownership interest in the funds, then answer Question
2. If you find that Jesus Vaca has no ownership interest in the funds, then answer no
further questions as to Jesus Vaca and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.’
So you would be completed then with the issues regarding Jesus Vaca if you find no
ownership interest.
“Question -- but if you do find he had an ownership interest, you would go to
Question 2. ‘Do you find that any of the seized funds related to Jesus Vaca are innocent
funds or that he did not have knowledge or did not consent to the illegal use of his
funds?’ Do you so find? If yes, you have instructions. If no, you have instructions. If
some or all the funds related to Jesus Vaca are innocent funds or you find that he had no
knowledge or did not consent to the illegal use of the funds, then answer Question 3.’ If
your answer to Question 2 is no -- ‘If no, answer no further questions and have the
presiding juror sign and date the form.’ Do you see the instructions? They follow on
‘yes’ or ‘no,’ depending on your response.
“Question 3, this is if you find he has an ownership interest and an innocent
interest. Three, ‘What amount, if any, of the funds should be returned?’ Okay. That
could be from zero to the entire amount. Okay, ladies and gentlemen? So that’s how it
would read.”
As to Yessina and Valle, the jury was asked to determine: (1) whether any funds
related to that claimant were innocent or the claimant lacked knowledge or did not
consent to the illegal use, and, if so, (2) “[w]hat amount, if any of the funds should be
returned?”
12
IV. Analysis
We turn first to the nature of the verdict form. The People argue that question No.
3 of the verdict form was a “who wins” general verdict because it authorized the jury to
return an answer of “$0,” while questions Nos. 1 and 2 were special verdicts because they
asked the jury to make specific factual findings. Claimants disagree and argue that the
three-question verdict form required the jury to return special verdicts. We agree with
claimants.
Initially, if the jury had answered either of the first two questions on the verdict
form in the negative, the jury would not have answered question No. 3, which is unlike a
general verdict form with special interrogatories that requires the jury to return both the
general verdict and the special interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc, § 625; see Mendoza v.
Club Car, Inc., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 303 [purpose of special findings is to
determine whether the general verdict is against the law].)
Next, contrary to how the People frame question No. 3, that question did not
broadly ask the jury to provide the ultimate legal result of the action by finding in favor
of either Jesus or the People. (See Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, supra, 222
Cal.App.4th at p. 1242.) Rather, question No. 3 directed the jury, after it found that Jesus
had an ownership interest in the seized currency (question No. 1) and that his ownership
interest in the seized currency was at least in part innocent or that he lacked knowledge of
or consent to the illegal use of the currency (question No. 2), to quantify that interest.
While it is true that an answer of “$0” to question No. 3 was a de facto verdict in favor of
the People, question No. 3 sought (and the jury provided) a factual finding based on the
evidence provided in the case.
The trial court’s instructions to the jury and comments to the parties support this
conclusion. The court instructed the jury with CACI No. 5012, “Introduction to Special
Verdict Form,” which, as the name implies, is given when a special verdict form is used:
“I will give you verdict forms with questions you must answer. I have already instructed
13
you on the law you are to use in answering you [sic] these questions …. You must
consider each question separately…. [Y]ou must answer the questions on the verdict
forms in the order they appear. After you answer a question, … the form tells you what
to do next.” Conversely, the court did not instruct the jury with CACI No. 5022,
“Introduction to General Verdict Form,” which would have instructed: “I will give you
[a] general verdict form[s]. The form[s] ask[s] you to find either in favor of [name of
plaintiff] or [name of defendant] … I have already instructed you on the law that you are
to refer to in making your determination[s].” (CACI No. 5022.)
Further, when discussing the verdict forms with the parties, the trial court
indicated that question No. 3 was intended to be a factual finding, not a general verdict.
The court clarified that question No. 3 would require the jury to provide “[h]ow much,
you know, the amount” of Jesus’s innocent interest in the seized currency, should it
answer the verdict form’s first two questions in the affirmative. Finally, while not
dispositive on its own, the court repeatedly referred to the “special verdict form” when
discussing the verdict forms with the parties. The People do not point us to anything in
the record suggesting that the court or the parties intended for question No. 3 to be a
general verdict.
Having decided the verdicts were special verdicts, we now review de novo
whether the verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent. (Cumbre, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins.
Fund, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388.) We conclude they were.
As we have already said, section 11488.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) require the trial
court to return seized funds in which a claimant has an ownership interest if the
government failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claimant consented
to the use of property with knowledge that it would be or was used for a purpose where
forfeiture is permitted. Here, the jury found that Jesus had an ownership interest in the
seized currency, and it responded “yes” to the question whether “any of the seized
$379,744.00 funds related to Jesus Vaca are innocent funds or that he did not have
14
knowledge or did not consent to the illegal use of his funds.” Having found that Jesus
had an ownership interest in the seized currency, and that his interest was at least partially
innocent or that he lacked knowledge of or consent to the illegal purpose of the currency,
the jury was legally required to answer question No. 3 in an amount greater than zero
dollars. (See § 11488.5, subds. (d) & (e).) As a result, the jury’s findings in response to
question Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be reconciled with its finding in response to question No. 3.
The People disagree with this conclusion and argue that the jury’s verdicts are not
irreconcilably inconsistent. In support, they argue that question No. 2 could have been
answered in two alternative ways, and the verdicts were reconcilable provided the jury
answered question No. 2 in one of the alternative ways they propose. Specifically, the
People argue the jury could have answered question No. 2 affirmatively if it found either:
(1) some amount of the seized currency was innocent money that was merely “ ‘related
to’ ” Jesus, which they define as “somehow connected to him,” but not owned by him; or
(2) Jesus “did not have knowledge or did not consent to the illegal use of” currency he
owned. According to the People, if the jury found that Jesus gave innocent money to
Yessina’s son as a gift for his birthday, that money would be “related to” Jesus, allowing
the jury to answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, but he would not have been entitled
to the return of that money because, at the time the currency was seized, he had
relinquished his ownership interest in it.
The People’s argument is unpersuasive. First, their proposed interpretation of
question No. 2 is not a natural reading of the question, which provided: “Do you find
that any of the seized $379,744.00 funds related to Jesus Vaca are innocent funds or that
he did not have knowledge or did not consent to the illegal use of his funds?” question
No. 2 is most naturally read to begin by referring to “the seized $379,744.00 funds related
to Jesus Vaca,” and asking whether that single referent included either: (1) innocent
funds, or (2) funds that were subject to forfeiture, but Jesus did not know of or consent to
the use that subjected the funds to forfeiture.
15
Second, the People’s interpretation of question No. 2 does not naturally follow
from the structure of the verdict form. Question No. 1 asked the jury to determine
whether Jesus had an ownership interest in the seized funds, and therefore standing to
claim the funds. (See Plascencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 420.) The jury was
instructed that it must answer question No. 2 only if it answered “yes” to question No. 1.
Because the verdict form was intended to determine whether, and in what amount, Jesus
was entitled to return of the seized currency, there would be no reason to ask the jury in
question No. 2 to make a finding about currency that Jesus lacked standing to claim.
Instead, the verdict form can only be reasonably interpreted as first asking the jury to
determine whether Jesus had an ownership interest in the seized currency, second to
determine whether the People had met their burden of proof under section 11488.5,
subdivision (d), and third, if the People had not satisfied their burden, to quantify the
amount of the currency Jesus was entitled to have returned.
The People argue that the jury was required to find the seized currency “related to”
Jesus in order to return $829 to Yessina, presumably for her son. 7 There is nothing to
support this argument, and there was no evidence that any of the money in Yessina’s
son’s mason jar was a gift from Jesus, as opposed to gifts from unnamed family
members.
Finally, the record does not suggest that the trial court or the parties intended for
question No. 2 to be interpreted as the People now suggest. In discussing the verdict
form with the parties, the court described the structure of the verdict form: “[Q]uestion
7 The People also argue that the jury could have determined $829 should be returned to
Yessina for her son only on the basis that the $829 was “related to” her because Yessina
did not testify that she owned the $829, and therefore the jury could not have found that
she had an ownership interest in the $829. The judgment as to Yessina is not before us in
this appeal, and accordingly we do not address the jury’s verdict as to her. In any event,
no claimant was entitled to the return of seized currency that the claimant lacked standing
to claim.
16
one: Does the jury find Jesus Vaca has an ownership interest in the seized funds? If
Jesus Vaca has no -- if you find Jesus Vaca has no ownership interest in the funds, then
answer no further questions as to Jesus Vaca and have the presiding juror sign and date
this form. If the jury finds Jesus Vaca has an ownership interest, then answer question
two. Question two: Do you find that the funds are innocent funds or he had no
knowledge or consent? If no, answer no further questions and have the presiding juror
sign and date this form. And have only one signature and date line. And then the
question three.” The court’s summary of the proposed special verdict form did not
suggest that question No. 2 could be answered in the affirmative based on the finding that
some portion of the currency was innocent and merely “related to” Jesus. Additionally,
the court instructed the jury that it was to answer question No. 3 only if it found “an
ownership interest and an innocent interest.” (Italics added.) At no time did the court
suggest that the jury could answer question No. 2 in the affirmative if it found some
portion of the funds Jesus lacked standing to claim were “related to” him.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the jury’s special verdicts were irreconcilably
inconsistent. The jury found that Jesus had an ownership interest in the seized funds
(question No. 1), and that his ownership interest was at least in part innocent, or that he
lacked knowledge of or did not consent to the illegal use of the funds (question No. 2).
Having made those findings, the jury was legally required to provide an amount greater
than zero dollars to return to Jesus.
In support of their posttrial motions, claimants submitted the declaration of a juror
who declared that the jury decided not to return currency to Jesus because the currency
was “dirty,” although the jury agreed Jesus had an ownership interest in the currency and
did not have knowledge of or consent to the illegal use of the currency. The trial court
concluded the juror’s declaration was inadmissible. On appeal, claimants contend the
declaration should have been considered by the trial court, although they acknowledge
that we do not need to do so in order to reverse and remand. We agree that we need not
17
consider the declaration to reverse and, as a result, also do not need to address claimants’
contention that the trial court erred by not doing so.
V. Remedy
Irreconcilable inconsistencies in a jury’s special verdict necessitate setting aside
the judgment and granting a new trial. (Horton, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 682; see
Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 110, 136 [reversing judgment where
special verdicts were fatally inconsistent]; Missakian v. Amusement Industry, Inc., supra,
69 Cal.App.5th at pp. 638, 660-662 [where inconsistency between special verdicts cannot
be resolved, both are invalid and trial court cannot choose between them].) Here, we
cannot resolve the inconsistency between the finding that Jesus had an at least partially
innocent interest in the seized currency, and its finding that Jesus was not entitled to a
return of any of the seized currency. Consequently, we will reverse the judgment as to
Jesus only and remand for retrial.
18
DISPOSITION
The judgment as to claimant Jesus Vaca is reversed, and the matter is remanded
for retrial as to his claim. The judgments as to claimants Yessina Vaca and Christian
Valle are affirmed. Claimants shall recover their costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.278(a).)
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
We concur:
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/s/
FEINBERG, J.
*Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
19
Filed 7/10/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, C104122
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CV-UA-F-
2020-0006241)
v.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
$379,744 UNITED STATES CURRENCY, AND CERTIFYING OPINION
FOR PUBLICATION
Defendant;
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
CHRISTIAN VALLE et al.
Defendants and Appellants.
1
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, George J.
Abdallah, Jr., Judge. Reversed and remanded in part, affirmed in part.
Law Office of Michael & Burch and Edward Michael Burch for Defendants and
Appellants.
Ronald J. Freitas, District Attorney, and Robert P. Martinelli, Deputy District
Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 22, 2026, be modified as follows:
1. On page 1 the entire first paragraph is to be deleted and replaced with the
following paragraph:
In this civil forfeiture proceeding (Health & Saf. Code, § 11469 et seq.),1
claimants and appellants Christian Valle, Yessina Vaca, and Jesus Vaca appeal
from a judgment forfeiting all but $829 of $379,744 in United States currency
seized as connected to the illegal sale of narcotics.2 Claimants contend the jury’s
special verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent, requiring reversal, because it
found that Jesus was not entitled to return of any of the seized funds, despite also
finding that Jesus had an ownership interest in the seized funds that was at least
partially innocent, or that he lacked knowledge of or did not consent to the illegal
use of his funds. They claim the jury’s verdicts violated section 11488.5, which
they argue compels the release of seized property to a claimant with an ownership
interest in it when the People fail to prove that the claimant consented to the use of
the property with knowledge that it would be or was used for a purpose where
2
forfeiture is permitted. We agree with claimants and reverse the judgment as to
Jesus only and remand for a new trial.
1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety
Code.
2 Due to their shared surname, we will refer to Yessina Vaca and Jesus
Vaca by their first names.
2. On page 2 after the first sentence of the second paragraph, delete “Health & Saf.
Code, ” within the parentheses and also delete footnote 2 immediately following the
parentheses. That parenthetical will now read:
(§ 11469 et seq.)
3. On page 15 at the beginning of the third sentence of the last paragraph, capitalize
the word “question.” That sentence will now read:
Question No. 2 is most naturally read to begin by referring to “the seized
$379,744.00 funds related to Jesus Vaca,” and asking whether that single referent
included either: (1) innocent funds, or (2) funds that were subject to forfeiture,
but Jesus did not know of or consent to the use that subjected the funds to
forfeiture.
This modification does not change the judgment.
The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on June 22, 2026, was not certified
for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now appears the opinion should
be published in the Official Reports, and it is so ordered.
3
FOR THE COURT:
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/s/
FEINBERG, J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J. ∗
∗ Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4