Skip to content
Name: People v. Ochoa
Case #: B218800
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 01/04/2011

The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to bar retrial of a criminal prosecution predicated on the same offense which a trial court found was not proven for purposes of a probation revocation. Appellant was on probation when he was charged in a new case with possession of a firearm by a felon and with a probation violation based on the same offense. A jury trial resulted in a hung jury, so the court declined to revoke probation. A second jury then convicted appellant. Appellant argued the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred retrial based on…

View Full Summary
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…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Sparks)
Case #: S164614
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 02/08/2010

Nonmutual collateral estoppel does not apply to verdicts in criminal cases. Four defendants agreed to an ill-conceived plan to steal marijuana plants from a growing operation protected by two armed guards and two pit bulls. There was controverted evidence that at some point, the plan may also have included threatening the armed guards with a pistol, using an exacto knife to sever the 14-foot plants, and using a roll of duct tape to tie up either the guards or plants. The four approached the property in a driving rain at 1:00 a.m., without the exacto knife or duct tape, and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Zavala
Case #: F051843
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/24/2008

The rule of collateral estoppel does not apply when a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks forclosure from consideration. An amended information charged appellant with, inter alia, murder, torture, kidnap, and sexual penetration by a foreign object. Appellant's first jury acquitted him of the sex offense, and hung on the others. A second jury hung on all charges. The third jury found appellant guilty of second degree murder, torture, and kidnapping. Appellant argued the torture conviction had to be reversed under the doctrine of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sons
Case #: B192825
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 06/19/2008

A court need not review a double jeopardy claim where it was previously raised and rejected on appeal. Appellant's original conviction for murder was vacated in federal court due to a Brady violation. Appellant filed a motion to bar retrial on a double jeopardy theory, which was denied. The Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the issue on appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied review. The matter was retried twice in Kern County, with both juries unable to reach a verdict. Following a change of venue to Santa Barbara County, a jury acquitted him…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: S124090
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/28/2006

Collateral estoppel bars the state from prosecuting welfare recipients for welfare fraud when they have already been exonerated in administrative proceedings. Affirming its previous decision in People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, the court held that Sims had not been either expressly or implicitly overruled by the Legislature, nor had the decision been undermined by subsequent case law. The court remanded, however, for a determination of whether the issues decided at the administrative hearing were identical to those at issue in the criminal…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Parham
Case #: B160306
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 09/09/2003
Subsequent History: 11/25/03 Depubl. request denied

After appellant had served two years in state prison for making terrorist threats, the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) determined that he was a mentally disordered offender (MDO). In 1999, appellant filed a petition to review that determination in the superior court, and the court entered a judgment in his favor. Later that year, appellant was incarcerated on a parole violation. The BPT again determined that he had a severe mental disorder. Appellant filed a petition for a superior court hearing. He also filed a motion to bar the proceedings and for summary judgment based…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Cruz
Case #: B154156
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 01/02/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 4/23/03

The factual finding in a state habeas corpus proceeding that defendant was not the shooter in a murder and attempted murder case had no collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent retrial of defendant on the same charges, nor was retrial barred by double jeopardy principles. Newly discovered evidence (testimony by an informant and a statement by Reyes himself that he was shooter) convinced the habeas court that Cruz was not the shooter. At the sentencing hearing on remaining charges, the People asserted the effect of the orders made at the habeas hearing was to vacate the convictions and…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Carbullido
Case #: 01-10578
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/01/2002
Subsequent History: None

The court found it would be a violation of double jeopardy to permit a second prosecution of the defendant, because further prosecution was barred by collateral estoppel. The first indictment charged him with one of nine arsons occurring over a one-year period. A court found him not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the offense charged and "for a period thereafter." Mental health experts agreed that defendant suffered from delusions which prevented him from understanding the wrongfulness of his acts. The stipulation submitted in the first prosecution listed all nine arsons, and it…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanchez
Case #: H022692
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/19/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/13/02: S110263

The gang registration requirement of Proposition 21 is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and does not violate the rights to privacy, against unreasonable search, against self-incrimination, to counsel, and against cruel and unusual punishment. It also does not violate the single subject…

View Full Summary