You are here: / COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

Tag Archive for: COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S USE OF A RAZOR BLADE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S ACQUITTAL ON THE RELATED “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” CHARGES IN THE FIRST TRIAL; ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE REQUIRED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BE GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not prohibit testimony in defendant's second trial that the defendant threatened to cut a victim's throat with a razor blade, despite the fact defendant was acquitted of charges involving the use of a dangerous instrument in the first trial. The court concluded that the witness-victims could not give truthful testimony about the defendant's actions without reference to the razor blade. Therefore, the collateral estoppel doctrine, under the facts of this case, was properly not applied. The court went on to find that defense counsel's request to withdraw or her motion for a mistrial should have been granted. Defense counsel's statements at arraignment were used to impeach the defendant's version of events. After defense counsel reviewed her notes, she informed the court that her statements at arraignment were incorrect and that defendant's testimony at trial matched what he had told her before arraignment. Under these circumstances, the witness-advocate rule required that defense counsel withdraw or that a mistrial be declared. Defendant's conviction was therefore reversed:

… [T]he rigid application of collateral estoppel sometimes gives way to society's interest in ensuring the correctness of criminal prosecutions … . Thus, … if it becomes apparent … that collateral estoppel “cannot practicably be followed if a necessary witness is to give truthful testimony, then [the doctrine] should not be applied” …. . * * *

[Re: the use of defense counsel's erroneous statement to impeach defendant:] The situation went from bad to worse when it became clear that the only way for defense counsel to rehabilitate her client's credibility was to impugn her own, moments before she would argue for her client's innocence in summation. Any way you look at it, defense counsel had no choice but to withdraw. In these unusual circumstances, we hold that the trial court should have granted counsel's request to withdraw or declared a mistrial. People v Ortiz, 2015 NY Slip Op 09233, CtApp 12-16-15

CRIMINAL LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE NOT APPLIED)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (UNDER THE FACTS, DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASE)/ATTORNEYS (ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE REQUIRED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BE GRANTED)/ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

Judicial Notice and Collateral Estoppel Re: Philippine Law and a Philippine Court Order Improperly Applied—Related Conspiracy Conviction Vacated/Emails and Newspaper Articles, Although Hearsay, Properly Admitted

The First Department, in a prosecution stemming from the failure to pay tax on the sale of a painting, determined Supreme Court improperly took judicial notice of the law of the Philippines and improperly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel (based upon a Philippine court order). The painting once belonged to Imelda Marcos when she was the First Lady of the Philippines. Under Philippine law, the painting allegedly should have been forfeited to the people of the Philippines. Defendant (with others) completed the sale of the painting for $32 million. The First Department vacated the conspiracy conviction because of the misapplication of Philippine law, but affirmed the crIminal tax fraud and “filing a false instrument” convictions. In addition to discussing the misapplication of Philippine law and the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the First Department held that emails, although hearsay, were properly admitted to show conduct (not for the truth of the content) and newspaper articles, although hearsay, were properly admitted to show defendant knew the Philippine government was trying to recover the painting (state-of-mind exception):

The trial court erred in reading or paraphrasing approximately eight sentences from an order of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines in a proceeding commenced by the Republic against Imelda Marcos and others, where the Philippine court granted summary judgment in favor of the petition, and ordered that more than $658 million held mostly in Swiss bank accounts be forfeited to the Republic. Only one sentence read by the court to the jury purported to state the law of the Philippines, namely Philippine Republic Act No. 1379, which provides that any property acquired by a public official during his or her term of public service that is “manifestly out of proportion” to the official’s public salary and any other lawful income “shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.” The remaining portions of the opinion read to the jury consisted of fact findings, and thus were not proper subjects of judicial notice pursuant to CPLR 4511(b) … .

The court implicitly applied collateral estoppel, which was inapplicable even under the standards governing civil cases, since defendant was not a party to the Philippine case and had no opportunity to litigate the issues therein; moreover, collateral estoppel should be applied with more caution in criminal cases than in civil … . The court further erred in paraphrasing the opinion without clarifying the rebuttable nature of the presumption under the Philippines law, and that error was compounded by the court’s ruling precluding defense counsel from addressing that point in summation. …

The court properly admitted emails exchanged between two of defendant’s alleged coconspirators, her nephews, under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the People made a prima facie showing of conspiracy “without recourse to the declarations sought to be introduced” … . There was testimony indicating that one of defendant’s nephews extensively participated in the painting sale at issue, and defendant sent $100,000 of the proceeds to him. Defendant also sent $5 million of the proceeds to the other nephew. Although defendant notes that the court relied in part on the emails at issue, the messages were properly considered to demonstrate the nephews’ conduct, such as offering or arranging to offer certain prices and forwarding photographs of paintings to potential buyers, rather than for the truth of the messages … .

Under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule …, the court properly admitted news articles and other documents, recovered in a search of defendant’s home, concerning the Philippine government’s efforts to recover artworks allegedly misappropriated by the Marcos administration. The circumstances warranted a reasonable inference that defendant was aware of these documents and their contents … , establishing her motive to conceal the sale of a painting allegedly given to her by the former First Lady. Thus, the evidence tended to rebut the defense argument that defendant’s failure to report her income from the sale on her tax returns was not necessarily intentional. People v Bautista, 2015 NY Slip Op 07589, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Precluded Litigation on Liability

The Second Department noted that a guilty plea in a criminal matter (in which plaintiff was injured by the defendant) can bar the convicted defendant from litigating liability in the related civil matter under the doctrine of collateral estoppel:

…[L]iability was established in accordance with the legal principle that ” [w]here a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from litigating the issue of . . . liability'” … . Abdelzaher v Sallustio, 2014 NY Slip Op 06040, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, ,

Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Applied In Civil Suit Alleging Sexual Abuse Where Defendant Pled Guilty to Offenses Described in the Civil Suit

The Second Department determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied where the issues raised in a civil suit, based upon allegations of sexual abuse to which the defendant pled guilty, were identical to the offenses described in the plea transcript. The doctrine, however, did not apply to the civil allegation of rape because the defendant did not plead guilty to rape:

“Where a criminal conviction is based upon facts identical to those in issue in a related civil action, the plaintiff in the civil action can successfully invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar the convicted defendant from litigating the issue of his liability” … . The doctrine applies whether the conviction resulted from a plea or a trial … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” … . “The party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Morrow v Gallagher, 2014 NY Slip Op 00489, 2nd Dept 1-29-14

 

,

“Evidentiary Fact” Resolved In Favor of Defendant by a Jury In the First Trial May Not Be Contradicted by Evidence Presented in the Second Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibited the introduction of evidence a firearm was displayed in the course of a robbery.  In the first trial, the defendant was acquitted of First Degree Robbery (which requires display of a firearm) and convicted of Second Degree Robbery (display of a weapon is not an element of Second Degree Robbery). The conviction was reversed on appeal.  In the second trial (for Second Degree Robbery only), the People presented evidence a weapon was displayed.  The court found the People were collaterally estopped from presenting evidence of the display of a weapon in the second trial:

This case is controlled by our holding in People v Acevedo (69 NY2d 478, 480 [1987]) that “the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be applied to issues of ‘evidentiary’ fact.”  As we explained in Acevedo, in the analysis of collateral estoppel issues, facts essential to the second judgment are considered “ultimate” facts; other facts are only “evidentiary” (id. at 480 n 1).  Under Acevedo, when an issue of evidentiary fact has been resolved in a defendant’s favor by a jury, the People may not, at a later trial, present evidence that contradicts the first jury’s finding.  People v O’Toole, 233, CtApp 12-10-13

 

, ,

Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Re: Related Criminal Convictions Properly Applied

The Second Department determined Family Court properly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel in an abuse proceeding based upon father’s criminal convictions:

The Family Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the ACS which was for summary judgment on the issue of the father’s derivative abuse. The ACS met its prima facie burden of showing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable…. “A determination in a criminal action may be given collateral estoppel effect in a Family Court proceeding where the identical issue has been resolved, and the defendant in the criminal action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his or her criminal conduct”…. The father’s convictions of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, rape in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child were based upon the same acts alleged to constitute sexual abuse as set forth in Family Court Act article 10 petitions (see Family Ct Act § 1012[e][iii]).  Matter of Angelica M, 2013 NY Slip Op 04339, 2nd Dept, 6-12-13

 

, ,

Acquittal on Assault Charges in First Trial Did Not Preclude Presentation of Evidence of the Assaults in Second Trial—Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Could Not Be Successfully Invoked Because the Meaning of the Acquittals Was Nearly Impossible to Discern

In a second trial, the defendant moved to preclude the prosecution from introducing evidence of two assaults which were the subjects of acquittals in the first trial.  The trial court allowed evidence of the two assaults.  On appeal the defendant argued that evidence of the assaults of which she was acquitted was precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  The Fourth Department disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s admission of the evidence, noting that the exact meaning of an acquittal in a criminal trial is often impossible to demonstrate:

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, operates in a criminal prosecution to bar relitigation of issues necessarily resolved in defendant’s favor at an earlier trial” …. Thus, the doctrine applies in a situation such as this, where at a prior trial there was a mixed verdict in which the jury acquitted a defendant of certain charges, but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges ….  “Application of the collateral estoppel doctrine requires that the court determine what the first judgment decided and how that determination bears on the later judgment . . . The rule is easily stated but frequently difficult to implement because the meaning of a general verdict is not always clear and mixed verdicts may, at times, appear inherently ambiguous.  Nevertheless, the court must assume the jury reached a rational result . . . , and a defendant claiming the benefit of estoppel carries the burden of identifying the particular issue on which he [or she] seeks to foreclose evidence and then establishing that the fact finder in the first trial, by its verdict, necessarily resolved that issue in his [or her] favor” …. “Defendant’s burden to show that the jury’s verdict in the prior trial necessarily decided a particular factual issue raised in the second prosecution is a heavy one indeed, and as a practical matter severely circumscribes the availability of collateral estoppel in criminal prosecutions . . . ‘[I]t will normally be impossible to ascertain the exact import of a verdict of acquittal in a criminal trial’ ” …. People v Brandie E…, KA 09-01366, 202, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

,

“Alford” Plea in Related Criminal Proceeding Did Not Have Preclusive Effect

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Pigott, held that an “Alford” plea entered in a criminal proceeding, in which there was no factual colloquy about the underlying offenses, should not be given a preclusive effect in a subsequent Worker’s Compensation proceeding related to the same facts.  The opinion includes a discussion of the criteria for and appropriate use of an “Alford” plea (in which guilt is not admitted).  In the Matter of Howard v Statute Electric, Inc., No. 29, CtApp 3-21-13

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy