People v. Morrison
156 A.D.3d 126
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- In June 2007 defendant Duone Morrison shot a victim; he was later convicted at trial of attempted second-degree murder and another crime; that conviction was affirmed on appeal.
- After the victim died, the People sought a new indictment for second-degree murder under CPL 40.20(2)(d) based on the victim's death.
- At the grand jury, the prosecutor told jurors they must accept as established (as a matter of law) that Morrison had shot the victim in the head and body with intent to kill; the People presented only evidence on causation and offered no evidence on identity or intent.
- Morrison moved to dismiss the subsequent indictment for legal insufficiency under CPL 210.20(1)(b), arguing the People improperly used collateral estoppel offensively to dispense with elements of the murder charge.
- County Court granted dismissal, concluding the grand jury evidence was legally insufficient and collateral estoppel could not be used in this manner; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Morrison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People may offensively use collateral estoppel in a grand jury proceeding to foreclose relitigation of elements (intent/identity). | Collateral estoppel can be applied offensively to bind Morrison on issues already determined in his prior trial, allowing the grand jury to accept those elements without new proof. | Offensive collateral estoppel cannot be used against a criminal defendant in a subsequent prosecution because it infringes constitutional protections (due process, presumption of innocence, jury trial rights). | The court held the People may not use collateral estoppel in this strategic way; offensive use here was improper. |
| Whether the grand jury evidence was legally sufficient to indict for second-degree murder when the People presented only causation evidence and asserted intent as established. | The evidence before the grand jury (causation) plus the prior trial ruling sufficed under collateral estoppel to support the indictment. | Absent proofs presented to the grand jury establishing every element, the indictment is legally insufficient under CPL 70.10(1) and CPL 210.20(1)(b). | The court held the evidence was legally insufficient and dismissed the indictment. |
| Whether constitutional or statutory law permits substituting collateral estoppel for the grand jury’s function. | Collateral estoppel is a permissible tool and, if applicable, can streamline prosecutions without violating rights. | The grand jury right under NY Const art I, § 6 and statutory sufficiency requirements cannot be displaced by collateral estoppel used for prosecutorial convenience. | The court held constitutional and statutory protections preclude using collateral estoppel to supplant the grand jury’s role. |
| Whether prior decisions approving collateral estoppel in criminal contexts authorize the People’s offensive use here. | The People relied on cases recognizing collateral estoppel in criminal cases to bar relitigation of issues decided for defendants. | Those precedents were limited, cautionary, and did not endorse offensive prosecutorial use; criminal cases require greater protection. | The court ruled that existing precedents do not justify offensive collateral estoppel here and that the doctrine is not to be liberally applied against defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589 (explaining grand jury indictment right under NY Constitution)
- People v Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389 (grand jury must have legally sufficient evidence)
- People v Aguilera, 82 N.Y.2d 23 (cautioning against liberal application of collateral estoppel in criminal cases)
- People v Acevedo, 69 N.Y.2d 478 (use of collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of issues decided for defendant)
- Ashe v Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (federal discussion of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion in criminal context)