State v. Andrew Bernwanger
13-15-00198-CR
Tex. App.Jul 15, 2015Background
- On Nov. 6, 2011, police stopped Andrew Bernwanger and issued municipal citations for Running a Stop Sign and Passing on the Wrong Side of the Road; he was later arrested for DWI based on the same stop.
- On Feb. 24, 2015, the State (via the City Attorney) tried both traffic citations to a jury in municipal court; the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on both tickets.
- On Mar. 9, 2015, the trial court granted Bernwanger’s motion invoking collateral estoppel, suppressing evidence obtained after the stop as fruit of the poisonous tree, and effectively barring the later DWI prosecution to the extent it relied on the same contested factual issues.
- The State appealed the trial court’s collateral-estoppel ruling to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals.
- Defense argues the State’s attempt to relitigate the factual basis for the stop at the DWI stage (where the burden is lower) violates the Double Jeopardy Clause / collateral estoppel (Ashe line of cases) and asks for remand for a hearing using the municipal trial transcript to identify precluded issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bernwanger) | Held (trial court / posture) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may relitigate facts decided by a jury acquitting Bernwanger of traffic offenses when prosecuting a later DWI based on the same stop | State contends a subsequent prosecution or suppression ruling is not barred because different elements and burdens apply; prior acquittal on municipal tickets does not preclude the DWI | Bernwanger argues collateral estoppel / Ashe prohibits relitigation of ultimate factual issues decided by the jury (the stop’s legality); allowing relitigation would permit the State to evade double jeopardy by pursuing different charges | Trial court granted collateral estoppel suppressing post-stop evidence; State appealed (issue pending on appeal) |
| Whether Ashe collateral estoppel applies where the prior proceeding was a jury trial in municipal court and the later proceeding is a felony DWI prosecution | State relies on cases permitting relitigation in non-jury or civil-forfeiture contexts | Defense stresses Ashe’s protection where a jury returned a not-guilty verdict on an issue of ultimate fact and urges a practical review of the municipal trial record to identify precluded issues | Trial court applied collateral estoppel; defense seeks remand to allow the trial court to review full trial transcript and make specific findings |
| Whether cases the State cites (e.g., York; Dowling) control where the prior adjudication was a jury acquittal | State cites York and Dowling to argue relitigation is permissible in these circumstances | Defense argues York and Dowling are distinguishable because they did not involve jury acquittals deciding ultimate facts and include civil or non-jury contexts where different burdens apply | Defense contends these cases are inapposite; trial court sided with defense on collateral estoppel (appeal ongoing) |
| Whether remand for an evidentiary hearing / record review is required to identify which factual issues are precluded | State refused remand request | Defense requests remand so the trial court can consider the full municipal trial transcript and enter specific findings about precluded issues | Defense requested remand; trial court’s collateral-estoppel order stands for now; appellate disposition unresolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (criminal collateral estoppel forbids relitigation of ultimate facts decided by a jury acquittal)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (different double jeopardy test focused on statutory elements)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (discusses limits on collateral estoppel and admission of prior-acquittal-related evidence; distinguishes civil proceedings and burdens of proof)
- York v. State, 342 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishable county-court suppression ruling—non-jury context; not controlling where prior jury acquittal decided facts)