Opinion ID: 1205526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's inculpatory statement judicial estoppel and prosecutorial misconduct

Text: At Defendant's prior armed robbery trial Meacham testified that he overheard Defendant say, I tried to get this old man to do what I wanted him to do, but he wouldn't do it. State v. Towery, Maricopa County No. CR 91-02512, R.T., Mar. 10, 1992, at 98. At the homicide trial, Meacham was again called to testify. His testimony approximated the testimony he gave in the armed robbery trial: he said that he heard Defendant tell Barker that he was having a hard time with an old man so he had  he had a hard time tying him up, so he had to knock him down. The victims of both crimes were older men. Because Defendant had different counsel at the two trials and was denied a transcript of the robbery trial, we must assume that his trial attorney in the present case did not know the substance of Meacham's testimony at the robbery trial. Moreover, before putting Meacham on the stand in the murder trial, the prosecutor failed to notify the court or defense counsel that he would present evidence of the same admission Meacham described in the robbery trial. The context of Meacham's testimony at both trials makes it quite clear, and the State concedes, that Meacham heard one admission about one crime. But the admission was used in two trials to help prove two unrelated criminal acts. Defendant claims that by presenting evidence of a single incident at two separate trials to prove two separate, unrelated crimes, the prosecutor violated Defendant's due process rights and the doctrine of estoppel by engaging in misconduct.
Defendant argues that the prosecutor [used] the same evidence to convict the appellant of two separate crimes ... attempting to prove a fact in one trial and seeking to prove an inconsistent fact in another trial with the same evidence. Opening Brief at 32. The error in using the evidence, in Defendant's words, is that it `perverts' the integrity of our system of jurisprudence. Id. at 35. Protecting the integrity of the judicial process is the universally recognized purpose of judicial estoppel. See, e.g., 18 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4477 (1981 and Supp. 1990); 1B J. MOORE, J. LUCAS & T. CURRIER, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE 405[8], at 239, 240 (2d ed. 1988); Scarano v. Central R.R., 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir.1953). Judicial estoppel prevents a party from taking an inconsistent position in successive or separate actions. This court has long recognized that [a]s a general rule, a party who has assumed a particular position in a judicial proceeding is estopped to assume an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties and questions. Martin v. Wood, 71 Ariz. 457, 459, 229 P.2d 710, 711-12 (1951) (citing 31 C.J.S. ESTOPPEL § 119, at 381). Judicial estoppel is not intended to protect individual litigants but is invoked to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a litigant from using the courts to gain an unfair advantage. See 31 C.J.S. ESTOPPEL § 121, at 260; see also Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 326 (9th Cir.1993); Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 739 (9th Cir.1991); Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1260, 111 S.Ct. 2915, 115 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1991); In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d at 641. Although judicial estoppel is usually invoked in civil cases, [12] courts have also applied it in criminal cases. See, e.g., State v. Washington, 142 Wis.2d 630, 419 N.W.2d 275, 277 (App. 1987). The doctrine's application to criminal cases usually involves a defendant who asserts one position at trial and another on appeal. See Harrison v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 187 Wis.2d 491, 523 N.W.2d 138, 140 (App. 1994). Nonetheless, criminal courts have indicated that judicial estoppel would preclude the state from changing its version of the facts in separate proceedings involving the same matter to protect the defendant's right to due process. See People v. Gayfield, 261 Ill. App.3d 379, 199 Ill.Dec. 123, 128-29, 633 N.E.2d 919, 924-25 (1994) (suggesting that the state would be estopped from inconsistently claiming in separate proceedings that different defendants shot the same victim); Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d at 1037-39 (state prohibited from arguing that criminal defendant's appellate petition is procedurally barred in state court after successfully arguing in district court that defendant had an adequate state remedy). We believe the doctrine of judicial estoppel is no less applicable in a criminal than in a civil trial. Any other rule would permit absurd results. For example, if the state had evidence that a defendant admitted robbing the convenience store, absent judicial estoppel the state could use that evidence to convict the defendant of every convenience store robbery in the city, affirming the evidence as relevant in each case, all the while knowing that the defendant made only one admission of a single act. Three requirements must exist before the court can apply judicial estoppel: (1) the parties must be the same, (2) the question involved must be the same, and (3) the party asserting the inconsistent position must have been successful in the prior judicial proceeding. See Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State, 114 Ariz. 480, 562 P.2d 360 (1977). In the present case the parties are the same. Because Defendant's admission could only pertain to one of the crimes, the question involved in both proceedings is also the same: did Defendant admit committing the charged crime in Meacham's presence? However, even though the parties and the questions are the same, a majority of courts, including Arizona, refuse to invoke judicial estoppel unless the position first asserted was successfully maintained. [13] Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 182 Ariz. 39, 44, 893 P.2d 39, 44 (App. 1995), vacated in part, 185 Ariz. 174, 913 P.2d 1092 (1996). The prior position was successfully maintained only if the party gained judicial relief as a result of asserting the particular position in the first proceeding. See id. at 44, 893 P.2d at 44; Standage, 114 Ariz. at 484, 562 P.2d at 364; State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co., 19 Ariz. App. 594, 600, 509 P.2d 725, 731 (1973). Prior success has also been defined as requiring that the court in the prior action accepted the first position. Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595, 598 (6th Cir.1982); see also Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420, 1427 (1993) (litigant must obtain victory on prior ground); Rand G. Boyers, Precluding Inconsistent Statements: The Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, 80 NW. U.L. REV. 1244, 1256 (1986) (the requirement of prior judicial acceptance is satisfied whenever a prior court `has adopted the position [contrary to that now] urged by that party, either as a preliminary matter or as part of a final disposition.') (citations omitted) (alterations by author). Prior success is a prerequisite to the application of judicial estoppel because absent judicial acceptance of the prior position, there is no risk of inconsistent results. See Edwards, 690 F.2d at 599; see also Boyers, supra, 80 Nw. U.L. REV. at 1253. Because the judicial process is unimpaired absent inconsistent results, and because judicial estoppel is recognized to protect the integrity of the judicial process, invocation of the doctrine is unwarranted without prior success on  or judicial acceptance of  the first position. See USLIFE Corp. v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 560 F. Supp. 1302, 1305 (N.D.Tex. 1983) (citing Edwards, 690 F.2d at 599); C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 4477 (1983). The guilty verdict on the armed robbery charge establishes that the jury accepted the State's position that Defendant committed that crime. The robbery verdict does not, however, establish that Defendant's admission to committing the armed robbery was a key element of the guilty verdict. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the jury in that case gave little or no consideration to Meacham's testimony, especially if his testimony constituted only an insignificant fraction of the total evidence offered to establish Defendant's guilt. See Boyers, supra, Nw. U.L. REV. at 1257. For this reason, judicial estoppel is generally not applied when the first inconsistent position was not a significant factor in the initial proceeding. Id. at 1263. Rather, the court, keeping in mind the `unnecessary hardship' that may result from invoking judicial estoppel when the position was unimportant in the initial proceeding, determines whether the importance of the issue in the particular case justifies invocation of the doctrine. Id. (citations omitted). Thus, to determine if the prior success requirement for invocation of judicial estoppel was met in the armed robbery trial, this court must examine the record of that trial to determine whether Meacham's testimony was arguably significant to the jury's determination of Defendant's guilt. Id. In other words, can we conclude that the judicial relief obtained by the State in the armed robbery conviction was arguably due to Meacham's testimony? See Standage, 114 Ariz. at 484, 562 P.2d at 364. [14] Having reviewed the entire record of the armed robbery trial, it is clear that Meacham's testimony was an insignificant factor in obtaining a conviction in that trial. All four robbery victims separately identified Defendant from a photographic line-up. They also testified at trial. When Defendant was arrested for the armed robbery, he had four credit cards of one of the victims in his wallet. In his home police found a gun identified by one of the victims as the gun used in the robbery, as well as clothing similar to that worn by the perpetrator of the robbery. Defendant also had a police scanner on his person when arrested; the robbery victims noted that the robber had an identical police scanner with him at the time of the crime. The license plate of the car Defendant drove to the robbery matched that of Barker's car, and Meacham testified that Defendant had access to Barker's car. Meacham's testimony about Defendant's admission came in as an unresponsive answer to a single question and was never mentioned again in the examination of Meacham or any other witness. The prosecutor never referred to Defendant's alleged admission in his opening statement or closing argument. We conclude that Meacham's testimony about Defendant's inculpatory statement was at most an insignificant factor in light of the overwhelming evidence of Defendant's guilt on the armed robbery charge. Because judicial estoppel is to be invoked cautiously, on these facts we are unprepared to say that the prior position was successfully maintained. We therefore decline to invoke judicial estoppel here to preclude Meacham's testimony at the murder trial. Thus, we examine whether the prosecutor's actions constituted misconduct justifying reversal.
At oral argument before this court, the State conceded that the prosecutor elicited testimony of an admission about a single incident to help establish Defendant's guilt of two unrelated crimes. The prosecutor justified his actions by telling this court that he had been mistaken about presenting Defendant's admission at the robbery trial. As the murder investigation developed, the prosecutor became less convinced that Defendant's admission related to the armed robbery and more convinced that Defendant had been describing events of the murder. The State supported its use of Defendant's admission at the murder trial because it was made after the murder, better fit the facts of the murder, [15] and was therefore relevant evidence in the murder trial. The State submits it was for the jury to decide what weight to give Meacham's testimony. Further, the State argues that Defendant was free to ask Meacham questions that would have explained the alleged admission, thereby attributing the admission to the robbery rather than to the murder. Even accepting the prosecutor's assertion that he decided in good faith that the inculpatory statement referred to the murder charge, we believe it improper for the State to fail to first notify defense counsel and the court of its intent to use evidence in this manner. While the robbery conviction awaited review by the court of appeals, the prosecutor made no effort to inform that court or defense counsel that he believed the admission did not relate to the robbery but to the murder, and had been improperly admitted in the first trial and properly used in the second. Nor did the prosecutor raise the matter after affirmance of the robbery conviction by the court of appeals. State v. Towery, No. 1 CA-CR 92-0831, Mem. Dec. (Ct.App. filed Sept. 29, 1994). When Defendant petitioned us to review that case, the State did not inform this court that Defendant's robbery conviction may have been based in part on improperly admitted evidence. This court denied review on March 21, 1995. If Defendant's inculpatory statement referred to the murder case, as the State now argues, the prosecutor should have informed the court and Defendant that he had presented irrelevant evidence at the robbery trial. At the very least, the prosecutor had a duty to give notice in one case or the other that the admission of a single incident had been used to help convict Defendant of unrelated charges. His failure to give notice in either case constitutes misconduct. Having concluded that the prosecutor's actions constituted misconduct, we consider whether Defendant suffered prejudice mandating a new trial. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 24.1. We are not eager to reverse a conviction on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct as a method to deter such future conduct. See State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 14, 770 P.2d 313, 318 (1989). Rather, absent structural error, we usually will not reverse if the error was harmless. Id. Error is harmless if we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to or affect the verdict. State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588, 600, 858 P.2d 1152, 1191, 1203 (1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1578, 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994). In the murder trial, even had defense counsel been aware of the prior use of Meacham's testimony, the State would probably have been permitted, over defense objection, to elicit the same testimony from Meacham by disavowing the relevance of the testimony in the armed robbery trial and placing the reviewing court on notice so it could be considered in Defendant's appeal of that conviction. See Ariz. R. Evid. 401, 403. Had defense counsel in the present case been aware of the prior inconsistent use of Meacham's testimony, however, he could have impeached Meacham with his prior testimony to raise doubts about whether the admission related to the murder. But after the prosecutor brought out Meacham's testimony in the murder trial, Defendant elicited the following from Meacham on cross-examination: Q. Do you know for sure that [he was] talking about Mr. Jones [the victim]? A. I thought [he was] talking about when [he] got busted before. Q. So, in fact, you didn't think [he was] talking about Mr. Jones? A. No, sir, I didn't. R.T., Aug. 11, 1992, at 40. On re-direct, the prosecutor tried to rehabilitate the witness by showing that for all Meacham knew, Defendant might have been discussing events of the murder, but he got no more than the following: Q. Okay. The conversation that you overheard, was it before or after all of this property came into the house? A. I believe it was after. Q. And you don't really know what the conversation that you heard pertains to, do you? A. No, sir. R.T., Aug. 11, 1992, at 41. Thus, both the defense attorney and the prosecutor elicited testimony indicating Meacham either believed Defendant admitted some crime other than the charged murder or was not sure what Defendant was admitting. Any impeachment defense counsel would have obtained from having known of the testimony in the prior trial was effectively achieved. Accordingly, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor's misconduct did not affect the verdict. See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588-90, 858 P.2d at 1191-93. Because the prosecutor's misconduct did not violate any of Defendant's constitutional rights resulting in reversible error, and because judicial estoppel would not preclude Meacham's testimony in the murder trial, Defendant has no remedy with respect to his murder conviction on this ground. Rather, when error that is harmless results from prosecutorial misconduct, the proper remedy is to report the offender to the state bar for possible sanctions, which we have done. Valdez, 160 Ariz. at 14, 770 P.2d at 318. Defendant also objects to the State's use of his statement at the sentencing hearing to prove the murder was committed in an especially cruel, heinous, or depraved manner under A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6). If Defendant's admission referred to an unrelated crime, it cannot be used to prove an aggravating factor for this crime. See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 604, 858 P.2d 1152 at 1207 (the special circumstances of cruelty, heinousness, or depravity apply to the defendant's actions during the offense). Although the trial judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was especially cruel, heinous, and depraved, the special verdict indicates that the judge did not rely on the disputed statement to prove this aggravator. Under these circumstances, we find no error.