Smith v. State

Summary

The court held that the appellants were judicially estopped from arguing that the forfeiture proceeding was untimely because they previously represented that an answer by an unserved claimant was effectively service. The court also held that the forfeiture complaint failed to allege the essential elements of theft by taking because it did not plead facts establishing the required intent to deprive. The court reversed the ruling on theft by taking, vacated the Court of Appeals' timeliness ruling without deciding the underlying statutory question, and remanded for consideration of whether another criminal offense was adequately alleged.