Skip to content
Name: People v. Yokely
Case #: B213003
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/15/2010

Following reversal and remand, on retrial, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case do not preclude the presentation of new evidence on a motion to suppress an in-court identification if the issue raised on remand does not concern that initially presented. Appellant was convicted of murder and attempted murder resulting from a drive-by shooting. A federal district court granted appellant’s habeas petition, finding his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated by introduction of an identification made at a line-up where counsel was not present. On retrial, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to exclude in-court identifications, and appellant was again convicted. The appeal alleged that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case, precluded the trial court from determining whether the identifications had an origin independent from the line-up. Collateral estoppel applies only if the issues involved in both proceedings are identical; have been litigated and decided in the prior proceeding; the decision in the prior proceeding was final and on the merits; and the party against whom preclusion is sought is identical. Under law of the case, the determination of the appellate court is conclusive in subsequent proceedings on the same case only if the issue is actually presented and determined by the appellate court. Since no suppression motion was litigated at the first trial, the prosecutor had no opportunity to establish an independent origin for the identifications. So, on retrial, the court was able to consider evidence actually presented at the suppression hearing.