FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 257 Table of Contents

257.1 Collateral Estoppel

    257.1.1 Collateral Estoppel Bars Relitigation Only If All Elements Were Resolved
    257.1.2 Collateral Estoppel: Improper For Prosecution To Rely On Collateral Estoppel Where Different Defense May Apply

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

PRACTICE NOTE: Collateral estoppel is an issue preclusion doctrine which is applicable when a factual issue was determined by a valid and final judgment. When this occurs, that issue may not be again litigated by the same parties in a subsequent action. (See Schiro v. Farley (1994) 510 US 222, 232 [114 SCt 783; 127 LEd2d 47]; see also U.S. v. Bailey (8th Cir. 1994) 34 F3d 683, 688 [prior acquittal bars only issues actually litigated]; State v. Acevedo (FL 1994) 632 So2d 1130, 1131; State v. Gusman (ID 1994) 874 P2d 1112, 1115.)

    For example, in U.S. v. Seley (9th Cir. 1992) 957 F2d 717, 721-23, the prosecution was precluded from retrying the defendant for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and other related offenses where the jury had already decided the ultimate issue that defendant lacked knowledge of the presence of the marijuana. (See also U.S. v. Barragan-Cepeda (9th Cir. 1994) 29 F3d 1378, 1380-82 [unlawful entry charge dismissed where alienage issue had already been decided in earlier proceeding]; Ganong v. State (GA 1996) 477 SE2d 324 [collateral estoppel applied as to issue of venue].)

    Similarly, in U.S. v. Romeo (9th Cir. 1997) 114 F3d 141 held that collateral estoppel principles precluded the defendant's retrial on importation charges because an essential element of the importation charge was resolved against the government when the jury acquitted the defendant of the possession charge. Because the possession charge was based on the same facts as the importation charge, and because knowledge was the only contested element as to the possession charge, the jury's acquittal as to the possession necessarily included a finding that the element of knowledge was lacking. Accordingly, the government was precluded from relitigating that issue as to the importation charge upon which the jury had deadlocked. (Romeo, 114 F3d at 143-44.)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.6 [Equitable Estoppel].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

PRACTICE NOTE: The prosecution may not invoke collateral estoppel against the defendant where the defendant might be in a position to advance different defenses in the subsequent action. (See Gutierrez v. Superior Court (CA 1994) 24 CA4th 153, 169 [29 CR2d 376] [defendant convicted of attempted murder; victim subsequently died and defendant charged with murder; prosecution not permitted to preclude trial on elements other than cause of death].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.6 [Equitable Estoppel].