Paul filed a post-trial motion, again contending the civil order precluded his criminal prosecution. The trial court denied the post-trial motion. This appeal followed. We review the legal question presented in this case de novo . Under the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel, a valid, final judgment which determines an ultimate fact issue precludes the same parties from relitigating that issue in a future case.
Collateral estoppel can apply when the first case is civil and the second case is criminal.
The State does not seriously dispute that the hearing judge entered a final order on the merits of its petition against Paul. Nor is there any suggestion the State did not have a full and fair opportunity to present its case at the hearing. We assume the State was motivated to earnestly and successfully litigate its petition, a potentially relevant factor in a collateral estoppel analysis. See American Family Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Savickas , No. 87585, slip op.