Matter of Clark v. Newbauer
148 A.D.3d 260
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- Pursuant to CPLR article 78, Clark seeks a writ of prohibition to stop Bronx Supreme Court from enforcing its December 16, 2016 order.
- A Bronx County Grand Jury indicted Joseph on robbery in the third degree, two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, based on a Feb. 28, 2015 incident.
- The grand jury dismissed the first-degree robbery and menacing charges, while returning a true bill on third-degree robbery.
- The People proffered a firearm as the violence element for the first-degree charge, relying on that charge to support the robbery elements.
- The trial court precluded gun-related evidence at trial, applying collateral estoppel to the grand jury’s dismissal of the first-degree charge.
- The Appellate Division granted the petition for a writ of prohibition, holding the grand jury dismissal was not final and that collateral estoppel should not bar gun evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of prohibition is available to review a collateral estoppel ruling | Clark argues prohibition lies to correct excess of authority | Newbauer argues no reviewable legal error is present | Yes, writ granted for excess of authority |
| Whether collateral estoppel may preclude gun evidence from trial | Clark argues grand jury dismissal of first degree is final preclusion | Newbauer argues collateral estoppel should apply to prevent gun evidence | No, grand jury dismissal is not a final adjudication and cannot bar gun evidence |
| Whether grand jury action can support collateral estoppel in this context | Clark contends grand jury action should have finality for estoppel | Newbauer contends it can have final effect under collateral estoppel | No, grand jury decisions lack finality and relief is inappropriate here |
| Whether the trial court’s ruling effectively terminated prosecution of the highest count | Clark asserts ruling terminates the case against third-degree robbery | Newbauer asserts ruling is permissible error review only | Yes, ruling effectively prevented prosecution of the highest count and was reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 352 (2016) (US Supreme Court 2016) (collateral estoppel in criminal cases; policy considerations favor final guilt determinations)
- Acevedo v. People, 69 N.Y.2d 478 (N.Y. 1987) (limits on collateral estoppel in criminal prosecutions)
- People v. Sailor, 65 N.Y.2d 224 (N.Y. 1985) (finality requirement for collateral estoppel in criminal cases)
- People v. O'Toole, 22 N.Y.3d 335 (N.Y. 2013) (collateral estoppel in criminal prosecutions; standard applied)
- People v. Terry, 38 A.D.3d 297 (1st Dept 2007) (grand jury actions not final for collateral estoppel (first dept))
- Ruffo v. Ruffo, 96 A.D.2d 128 (3d Dept 1983) (grand jury dismissals not final and not collateral estoppel)
- Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564 (N.Y. 1988) (prohibition remedy scope; excess of authority standard)
- Johnson v. Sackett, 109 A.D.3d 427 (1st Dept 2013) (collateral estoppel reviewability in CPLR 78 petitions)
- Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 352 (US Supreme Court 2016) (higher court guidance on collateral estoppel in multi-count prosecutions)