Collateral Estoppel in Criminal Case

State prevails in criminal appeal

The State of Texas v. Ryan Getman, No. (Tex.App.- Austin, May 1, 2008) ()
The State of Texas v. Ryan Getman
Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

The collateral estoppel rule "means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Ashe, 397 U.S. at 443. In Ashe, the United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause incorporates collateral estoppel as a constitutional requirement. Id. at 445.

The defendant in Ashe urged that his acquittal in a prosecution for robbing a participant in a poker game barred his subsequent prosecution for robbing another participant in the game. Id. at 339. After cautioning that criminal collateral estoppel should not be applied in a "hypertechnical" manner, the Court wrote:

Where a previous judgment of acquittal was based upon a general verdict, as is usually the case, this approach requires a court to examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.
* * *

The court of criminal appeals has held that a probation revocation hearing can give rise to collateral estoppel. See Ex parte Tarver, 725 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). However, for collateral estoppel to apply, (1) there must be a fact-finding by the trial court at the probation revocation proceeding that illustrates the basis for the court's decision; Jaime v. State, 81 S.W.3d 920, 926 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2002, pet. ref'd); Wafer v. State, 58 S.W.3d 138, 141 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2001, no pet.); and (2) that fact-finding must be adverse to the State on a fact elemental to the subsequent prosecution. Id. at 141.

* * *
CONCLUSION

The district court below erred by concluding that the Nueces County district court, at the hearing on the State's motion to revoke Getman's probation, decided an issue of ultimate fact that would preclude the State from trying Getman in Travis County for the aggravated assault alleged in the instant indictment. The court's order is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.