People v. Allee

• Decision Date: 29 June 1987
• Citation: People v. Allee, 740 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1987)
• Docket Number: 85SC149
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Dale Francis ALLEE, Respondent.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 1

740 P.2d 1

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v.Dale Francis ALLEE, Respondent.

No. 85SC149.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

June 29, 1987.

James F. Smith, Dist. Atty., Michael J. Milne, Deputy Dist. Atty., Brighton, for petitioner.

Vincent C. Todd, Denver, for respondent.

LOHR, Justice.

We granted certiorari to review a judgment of the Adams County District Court that affirmed an order of the County Court of Adams County dismissing charges of third degree assault and resisting arrest brought against the defendant, Dale F. Allee.Allee's defense was that his actions were legally justified because he was attempting to prevent a police officer from using excessive force in arresting Allee's son, Ronnie Allee.The county court dismissed the charges on the basis that a jury's acquittal of Ronnie Allee on charges identical to those against the defendant conclusively established that the defendant's actions were justified.The court reasoned that the judgment of acquittal collaterally estopped the People from asserting that the defendant's actions were not legally justified, even though the defendant was not a party to the case tried against Ronnie Allee.We conclude that the doctrine of collateral estoppel may not be asserted against the People by a defendant who was not a party to the prior criminal proceeding in which the issue that the People seek to relitigate against the defendant was decided.Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and direct that court to remand the case to the county court for reinstatement of the charges against the defendant.

I.

A.

We derive the facts underlying the charges against the defendant from the record of the trial of the defendant's son, Ronnie Allee.¹Although the cases against the defendant and Ronnie Allee were brought separately, the charges arose from the same incident.

On the evening of September 5, 1983, Adams County sheriff's deputies Terry Meyers and Ulrike Davies went to Jimbo's Bar in Commerce City in response to a report of a fight.Upon arriving at the bar they observed Ronnie Allee and his wife, Cheryl, arguing in the parking lot.When Cheryl Allee started walking toward the officers, Ronnie Allee grabbed her from behind.Cheryl Allee then became hysterical and Officer Meyers told Ronnie Allee to release her.Ronnie Allee refused to release her, and the officers pried her from Ronnie Allee's grasp.It is at this point that the testimony of the officers diverges significantly from that of the defense witnesses.

The officers testified that when Cheryl Allee had been freed, Ronnie Allee began to assault Officer Meyers, who attempted to defend himself with his nightstick.Officer Davies attempted to aid Officer Meyers in subduing Ronnie Allee and handcuffing him.At this point, according to the officers, the defendant arrived on the scene and pulled Officer Meyers to the ground.Ronnie Allee was able to break free from Officer Davies and went to where the defendant and Officer Meyers were struggling on the ground and began to hit and kick Officer Meyers.Officer Davies and Watch Commander Murray, who had arrived on the scene in response to a radio call by Officer Davies for help, were able to subdue the defendant and Ronnie Allee.The defendant and Ronnie Allee were then transported to the police station and booked.

Ronnie and Cheryl Allee's testimony was very different from that of the officers.Ronnie Allee testified that he had not assaulted any of the officers and that he did not resist arrest in any way.He contended instead that after the officers had pulled Cheryl Allee away from him, Officer Meyers attacked him with a nightstick.He then tried to protect himself from the blows, and the defendant pulled Officer Meyers to the ground from behind.Ronnie Allee also testified that he did not join in the fight between the defendant and Officer Meyers.Cheryl Allee corroborated Ronnie Allee's testimony that he put his hands up to protect himself from Officer Meyers's blows, but testified that she did not see any part of the incident after that point.Dale Allee did not testify at his son's trial.

B.

Both Ronnie and Dale Allee were charged in separate cases with third degree assault, a class 1 misdemeanor, in violation of section 18-3-204, 8B C.R.S. (1986), ² and resisting arrest, a class 2 misdemeanor, in violation of section 18-8-103, 8B C.R.S. (1986).³Both cases were assigned to the same judge of the County Court of Adams County.

Ronnie Allee pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.His theory of defense was that he did not commit the crimes charged.More specifically, he claimed that he had never assaulted any of the officers or resisted arrest in any way, but that he had instead been the victim of excessive force on the part of the officers.Trial was to a jury, and Ronnie Allee was acquitted of both charges.

Dale Allee had requested and been granted a delay in the commencement of his trial pending the outcome of Ronnie Allee's trial.Following the jury's acquittal of Ronnie Allee, Dale Allee filed a Motion to Dismiss as Precluded by Collateral Estoppel.The motion alleged that the acquittal of Ronnie Allee established that Officer Meyers was using unlawful force against Ronnie Allee and that, therefore, Dale Allee was justified as a matter of law in using reasonable force against Officer Meyers to prevent the use of unlawful force by Officer Meyers against Ronnie Allee.See§ 18-1-704(1), 8B C.R.S. (1986)(permitting the use of physical force in defense of a third person).⁴

The People moved to strike the motion to dismiss.The motion to strike alleged that principles of collateral estoppel were inapplicable to this case because (1)Dale Allee was not a party to or in privity with a party to Ronnie Allee's case, (2)the People did not have "a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of [justification]"⁵ raised by the motion to dismiss, (3)Dale Allee did not testify at Ronnie Allee's trial, (4) no instructions pertaining to the defense of justification were submitted to the jury in Ronnie Allee's trial, and (5)section 18-1-605, 8B C.R.S. (1986), allows the People to prosecute Dale Allee independently even though Ronnie Allee was acquitted.

A hearing on the defendant's motion to dismiss and the People's motion to strike was held before the judge assigned to Dale Allee's case--the same judge who had presided at Ronnie Allee's trial.The judge denied the People's motion to strike and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.In denying the People's motion to strike, the court stated:

The Court finds, concerning the ... elements which would establish collateral estoppel as an appropriate theory on which to proceed in this case that although Dale Allee was not a party to the Ronnie Allee trial the identity of parties or privity required for collateral estoppel does exist in this case since the parties against whom the doctrine was asserted are the same.That is the People of the State of Colorado, plaintiff, in both cases.

It appears to the Court that issues raised in the motion to strike are identical to those which were litigated in the Ronnie Allee case, that there was opportunity in that case for those issues to be litigated fairly and completely, that there was a final verdict in the Ronnie Allee case, and therefore it is the finding of the Court that the motion to strike shall be denied.

With respect to the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court ruled:

The Court finds that at the Ronnie Allee trial Ronnie Allee was found to be not guilty of resisting arrest and not guilty of assault.The Court finds that the evidence in the Ronnie Allee case established, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People and considering the result of that trial, that the force employed by Officer Meyers upon Ronnie Allee was unlawful force.

The Court finds that the elements of justification are available to the defendantDale Allee and that the evidence presented in the Ronnie Allee case establishes, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People and in the light of results of that case, that the justification of the force used by Dale Allee is established in that it was not unreasonable, when considering the force being applied upon Ronnie Allee.⁶

The county court therefore granted the motion to dismiss.The People appealed the order of dismissal to the Adams County District Court.SeeCrim.P. 37.

The district court affirmed the decision of the county court.The district court held "that in some rare instances non-mutual collateral estoppel may be raised in Colorado ..." by a defendant in a criminal prosecution who was not a party to the prior criminal prosecution in which the issue sought to be relitigated by the People was decided.The district court held that collateral estoppel was appropriate under the facts in the present case because: (1) the judge who heard the evidence in Ronnie Allee's trial was the same judge assigned to Dale Allee's case; (2) there was no indication in the record nor was there any allegation by the People that additional evidence not presented at Ronnie Allee's trial would be presented at Dale Allee's trial; and (3) no purpose would be served, and judicial time would be wasted, by requiring the judge to sit through the People's case "before entering a ruling that, as a matter of law, the actions of the sheriff's officers were unreasonable."

We subsequently granted the People's petition for certiorari on the issues of whether a defendant may assert the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel against the People based on a prior criminal proceeding in which he was not a party, and, if so, whether the requirements of nonmutual collateral estoppel were satisfied in the present case.

II.

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel 'means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot...