Section 16.35 Judgment of Prior Conviction

• Library: Evidence 2017

B. (§16.35) Judgment of Prior Conviction

The hearsay exception for admission of a prior judgment of conviction is unusual in that it does not raise concerns of trustworthiness. Rather, it is an evidentiary rule that finds its source and justification in the principles governing the doctrine of collateral estoppel. A criminal conviction includes a judgment after trial, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere.

“Generally speaking,” it has long been the law that a guilty plea is an admission that may be used against a party in a civil case in the same manner as any other type of admission. See, e.g., State v. Daniels, 789 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990) (quoting Pruiett v. Wilform, 477 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Mo. 1972)). The admission of the plea is “not conclusive” and may be explained. Daniels, 789 S.W.2d at 245 (quoting Pruiett, 477 S.W.2d at 80). A criminal conviction upon a not-guilty plea is not admissible in a civil case. Daniels, 789 S.W.2d at 245.

The rule of exclusion of the prior conviction in the civil case after a plea of not guilty does not apply if the civil litigant is denied by the principles of collateral estoppel from contesting the facts in the civil case. For example, in Daniels, 789 S.W.2d 243, the defendant could not object to the admission of the prior conviction in the criminal case to contest his possession of the drug in the civil action of forfeiture. Id. at 245–46. The doctrine of collateral estoppel resolved the factual dispute. See also Bradley v. Bradley, 573 S.W.2d 378, 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 1978) (the wife cannot recover on the life insurance policy after being convicted of the husband’s murder); In re Laspy’s Estate, 409 S.W.2d 725, 733–36 (Mo. App. W.D. 1966) (under the common law, the wife, who killed her husband, could not inherit).

The application of collateral estoppel principles to foreclose the retrial of a fact depends primarily on “fairness.” In James v. Paul, 49 S.W.3d 678 (Mo. banc 2001), the Supreme Court of Missouri found that it was fair to prevent the defendant from litigating in the civil suit his mental state and conduct. The insured defendant attacked the plaintiff. The attacker pleaded guilty to assault. The plaintiff filed suit against the attacker, who notified his insurance company and requested a defense. The company denied coverage. The plaintiff and the attacker entered into a settlement agreement in accordance with § 537.065, now RSMo 2016, whereby the plaintiff would take a judgment and try to...