CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2023)
Sammy Sawyer
In Esguerra v. State, 536 P.3d 241 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023), the court of appeals held that the State is not precluded from pursuing criminal charges under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel when the State failed to prove those same charges in a probation revocation proceeding. (Id. at 242). Esguerra was convicted in 2002 on multiple counts of sexual abuse of a minor and one count of attempted sexual abuse of a minor, and was later released on probation. (Id.). In 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Esguerra’s probation on three separate grounds. (Id.). Esguerra testified at the probation revocation hearing, and the State believed that Esguerra lied on the stand. (Id.). In response, the State added a fourth violation to the petition alleging that Esguerra had committed perjury. (Id.). The court found that the State had not proven the allegation of perjury at the probation revocation hearing. (Id.). The State later indicted Esguerra on eleven counts of perjury based on his probation hearing testimony. (Id.). Esguerra argued that the State was barred from pursuing that allegation in a subsequent proceeding by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. (Id.). The court disagreed, reasoning that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply because the State could not adequately pursue its cause of action through a petition to revoke probation. (Id. at 243). Additionally, the court determined that collateral estoppel did not apply based on public policy grounds. (Id. at 244). Specifically, the court agreed with the California Supreme Court that probation revocation hearings and criminal trials serve different public interests. (Id.). Accordingly, the court affirmed the superior court’s ruling and held that the State is not precluded from pursuing criminal charges under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel when the State failed to prove those same charges in a probation revocation proceeding. (Id. at 245).
