Pooley v. State, 4 Div. 302
Decision Date | 26 February 1985 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 302 |
Parties | Loy Clayton POOLEY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James A. Ward, III, Dothan, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and M. Beth Slate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Loy Pooley, the appellant, was indicted and convicted for unlawful breaking and entering a vehicle in violation of Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-8-11. Sentence was six years' imprisonment.
In October of 1983, defendant Pooley and co-defendant Jonathan David Adams were jointly tried under an indictment charging the possession of burglary tools described as "screwdriver, gloves, wire pliers and key cutters ... with intent to use the same, in the commission of an offense involving forcible entry into premises or theft." Adams was convicted and that conviction was affirmed by this Court in Adams v. State, 459 So.2d 999 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). Pooley was acquitted. In that case, a screwdriver, pen flashlight, wire pliers, gloves and a derringer were found on Adams. A key-making device was found in Adams' automobile, which was parked nearby. No burglar tools were found on the defendant. The State proved that Keith Anthony's Honda automobile was burglarized by one man. In our opinion affirming Adams' conviction, this Court found that "the evidence thus considered constitutes substantial evidence that ... [Adams], either as the principal or as an aider or abettor, was guilty of the possession of burglar's tools with the intent to use the tools in the commission of an offense involving forceful entry into premises or theft ... as charged in the indictment."
In November of 1983, Pooley was tried separately and convicted for the burglary of Anthony's car. In that case, essentially the identical evidence was introduced as in the initial prosecution for the possession of burglary tools.
The legal principles of collateral estoppel are summarized in "Project: Thirteenth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure", 72 Geo.L.J. 249, 517-18 (1983):
See generally, Annot., 9 A.L.R.3d 203 (1966). Collateral estoppel "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 v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). The final question a court must answer in adjudicating a claim of collateral estoppel is "whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration." Ashe, 397 U.S. at 444, 90 S.Ct. at 1194.
Here, the trial judge denied the defendant's "plea in bar, autrefois acquit" because "the two offenses charged, the possession of burglar tools and the unlawful breaking and entering of a vehicle are independent and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Daniels v. State
...States Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1983-1984, 73 Geo.L.J. 249, 565-66 (1984) (footnotes omitted). See, e.g., Pooley v. State, 470 So.2d 1337 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (wherein the court held that the defendant's acquittal of possession of burglary tools estops the State from prosecuting the......
-
State ex rel. Tyson v. TED'S GAME ENTER.
...a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Pooley v. State, 470 So.2d 1337, 1339 (Ala.Crim.App.1985) (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (emphasis Aside from the foregoing, i......
-
First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.
...Inc. v. Barber, 429 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Ala.1983); accord, Owen v. Miller, 414 So.2d 889, 890-91 (Ala.1981); Pooley v. State, 470 So.2d 1337, 1339 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). Denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment. Barber, 429 So.2d at 1027. Nor does such a denial become the......
-
Parker v. State
...the same parties in a future lawsuit. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); Pooley v. State, 470 So.2d 1337 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Morris v. State, 465 So.2d 1173, reversed, 465 So.2d 1180, on remand, 465 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). The doctrines of c......