MA: Collateral estoppel requires mutuality of parties; codefendant’s win of his suppression hearing does not preclude prosecution

Collateral estoppel in criminal cases requires mutuality of parties. Here, the codefendant’s win of his suppression hearing that the state did not appeal does not preclude the prosecution from attempting to use the evidence against the defendant. While Massachusetts cases do suggest that mutuality is not required, the Supreme Judicial Court concludes that those cases do not apply to suppression hearings. One purpose of collateral estoppel, conserving judicial resources, is not served by nonmutuality because it would force the state to appeal every adverse ruling in multidefendant cases. On the merits, the stop and subsequent search incident were valid because of probable cause. The defendant had loose cash and baggies in his lap. Commonwealth v. Stephens, 451 Mass. 370, 885 N.E.2d 785 (2008):

Mutuality of parties in criminal cases is required for another reason: to permit the Commonwealth to decide, depending on the import of each case and the resources available, whether to take an interlocutory appeal from a suppression order. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996), and G. L. c. 278, § 28E. A single justice “rarely” refuses to grant a Commonwealth application when its case depends on the evidence that has been suppressed. Commonwealth v. Williams, 431 Mass. 71, 76 (2000). But a decision by the Commonwealth not to pursue an interlocutory appeal may be based on considerations independent of the merits of any appeal. The Commonwealth may elect to nol pros an indictment rather than appeal from an order suppressing evidence when a charge does not justify the cost of appeal. Or, if evidence is suppressed, the Commonwealth may decide to proceed without the evidence rather than seek an appeal. See 6 W.R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.2(g), at 103 & n.313 (4th ed. 2004) (prosecutor may elect not to take appeal from order suppressing evidence if “the objects suppressed are not an important part of the proof”). Here, the codefendant was charged with possession and distribution of cocaine, first offense. The Commonwealth, in its discretion, may have concluded that the charge did not justify the cost of appeal, or may have exercised its discretion not to appeal for other reasons. Abandoning a requirement of mutuality would compel the Commonwealth to pursue an interlocutory appeal from an order suppressing evidence in every case where a codefendant or coindictee did not participate in the suppression hearing. The resulting burden on all parties and the courts is obvious. See 6 W.R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, supra at § 11.2(g), at 103, quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 comment i (1980) (if it were necessary “to appeal solely for the purpose of avoiding the application of the rule of issue preclusion, then the rule might be responsible for increasing the burdens of litigation on the parties and the courts rather than lightening those burdens”).

[The issue between defendants may also be different; such as when standing issues are different.]