In Favor of Trinas Law: A Proposal to Allow Crime Victims in Ohio to Use the Criminal Convictions of the Perpetrators

• Pages: 351-367

The Center For Law and Justice at the University of Cincinnati College of Law

The authors of this Article are Megan Maag, University of Cincinnati law student, and Adam Tomakich, University of Cincinnati law student. Mark Godsey, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and Faculty Director, Center for Law and Justice; John Cranley, Lecturer in Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and Administrative Director, Center for Law and Justice; and Gabriel J. Chin, former Rufus King Professor of Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, now Professor of Law at the University of Arizona College of Law, supervised the project and edited the Article.

Page 351

I Introduction

Ohio is in the minority of jurisdictions that do not allow the victim of a crime to use the felony conviction of the perpetrator as conclusive evidence that the criminal acts occurred in a subsequent civil case. This law exists in Ohio despite the fact that the benefits of allowing criminal convictions to have estoppel effect in a subsequent civil action outweigh the virtually non-existent risks.

A law allowing criminal convictions to estop relitigation of issues in a civil action would save time and judicial resources by avoiding the relitigation of issues that were conclusively established in a criminal action, as well as prevent the victim from spending time and money relitigating issues that were firmly established in the criminal action. The latter concern is especially clear in the case of Trina Hatchett. Ms. Hatchett was the victim of an attempted murder and is currently embroiled in a civil action with her attacker,¹ who was already convicted of attacking her in a criminal proceeding.² Ms. Hatchett, like many Ohio residents in her position, has unfortunately had to bear the burden of Ohio's minorityPage 352 position on this issue. She has watched in frustration as her attacker has claimed in the pending civil action that he is not guilty of the offense despite having already been convicted of the offense in a criminal forum, where the burden of proof was higher than in the pending civil case. Ohio's minority position on this issue has forced Ms. Hatchett to bear the burden and expense of relitigating her attacker's guilt-not only adding undue hardship and expense to her physical injuries, but wasting the resources of the judicial system as well.

This Article explores the reasons why Ohio should adopt legislation that would allow criminal convictions to estop litigation of certain issues in a civil action. Part II.A sets up the issue by exploring the facts of Ms. Hatchett's case. Part II.B then discusses the stance of the majority states. Part II.C, in turn, summarizes the stance of the minority states. Part II.D then discusses how Ohio currently uses criminal convictions in subsequent civil actions. Part II.E argues that ratification of legislation that would allow criminal convictions to have estoppel effect in subsequent civil actions would be valid under Ohio law. Part II.F then establishes the reasons why Ohio should adopt a law that would allow criminal convictions to have estoppel effect in a civil action. Finally, Part II.G explores the appropriate scope of the proposed law.

II Discussion

A The Facts of Ms. Hatchett's Case

The facts of Trina Hatchett's case were obtained from The Cincinnati Post and The Cincinnati Enquirer, and from personal interviews with Trina Hatchett.³ On November 23, 2001, Danny Williams walked into J. Alexander's restaurant in Cincinnati with a 9mm and a .45 caliber handgun.⁴ He sat down in a booth across from his ex-girlfriend, Trina Hatchett, and her dinner companion, Michael Smith.⁵ When the pair tried to leave, Williams pulled out the 9mm and shot Ms. Hatchett in the chest, narrowly missing her aorta.⁶ Mr. Smith then tackled Williams, knocking the 9mm out of his hand, at which point Williams lifted the .45 caliberPage 353 handgun and fired at Mr. Smith, but missed.⁷ Williams then pointed the .45 caliber handgun at Ms. Hatchett and fired.⁸ Had she not slumped down at that exact moment, Williams would have shot Ms. Hatchett in the head.⁹Williams then shot at Mr. Smith yet again as Smith attempted to flee, this time hitting him in the leg.¹⁰

Williams was charged with two counts of attempted murder.¹¹ After a plea agreement was reached, Williams pled guilty to the two counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.¹²

Mr. Smith nearly lost his leg in the attack, and now must have an operation every five years to maintain his ability to walk.¹³ Ms. Hatchett suffered a nicked lung and three broken ribs.¹⁴ She has numerous medical bills, suffers from severe anguish and anxiety, and has permanent scarring and disability because of the wounds inflicted by Williams.¹⁵

Ms. Hatchett has subsequently filed a civil suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, which includes counts of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.¹⁶ She seeks actual damages in excess of $25,000 and punitive damages in excess of $25,000.¹⁷ Included in the calculation of Ms. Hatchett's actual damages is payment to recover full title to the house that she and the convicted perpetrator, Williams, jointly own. Williams still reaps the benefits of ownership while in prison. Williams now claims that the shooting was in self-defense in the civil suit,¹⁸ even though he has already pled guilty to attempted murder in the criminal proceeding. Ms. Hatchett is now in the frustrating position of having to reprove issues in her civil suit that were already decided in the criminal proceeding.¹⁹

Page 354

B A Majority of States Have Allowed Criminal Convictions to Be Used as

Conclusive Evidence That the Criminal Acts Occurred in a Subsequent Civil Action

Thirty-nine states and the federal government allow criminal convictions to estop the litigation of issues in a subsequent civil action. Twenty-nine states have followed the majority position through case law,²⁰Page 355 while the federal government²¹ and the remaining ten states have adopted formal legislation.²²

Page 356

The states that have followed the majority position through case law have done so for a variety of reasons, with a range of safeguards in place to insure fairness to the defendant. In Scott v. Robertson,²³ the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the use of a criminal conviction to estopPage 357 litigation in a subsequent civil action is justified if three factors are present that protect the defendant from unjust application of the law.²⁴ The court first required that the defendant be convicted of a "serious criminal offense," to insure that the defendant had a full incentive to defend himself in the criminal forum.²⁵ The court's second condition was that the defendant had a "full and fair hearing" in the criminal forum in order to prevent the introduction of a prior conviction where there was a substantial question of its validity.²⁶ The final requirement of the court was that "the issue on which judgment is offered was necessarily decided in the previous [criminal action]."²⁷

In Dettmann v. Kruckenberg,²⁸ the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the issue of whether a defendant in a civil action was driving a car involved in an accident was precluded from being relitigated, due to the defendant's criminal conviction of vehicular homicide.²⁹ In reaching this decision the court reasoned that the defendant was found guilty of vehicular homicide beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher burden of proof than is required in the civil forum, implicit in which was a finding by the jury that the defendant was driving the car.³⁰ Additionally, the driver issue was raised and litigated in the criminal forum, and the issue was essential to the judgment in the criminal case.³¹ Furthermore, the defendant had a full and fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the driver issue in the criminal case due to the seriousness of the criminal offense.³²

In American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Savickas,³³ the Supreme Court of Illinois overruled its previous precedent of not allowing criminal convictions to have estoppel effect in subsequent civil actions.³⁴ The court reasoned that the differences between civil and criminal litigation all favor the criminal defendant.³⁵ The court illustrated some of these differences, such as the procedural safeguard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury verdict in the criminal forum,³⁶ the fact that in a criminal trial the defendant has the right to remain silent, and the court cannotPage 358 comment on his silence,³⁷ and that a criminal defendant has the right to counsel and a record paid for by the state on appeal.³⁸ The court decided that these differences all militate in favor of allowing criminal convictions to have estoppel effect, because the greater safeguards in the criminal forum make criminal convictions more reliable.³⁹ The court went on to state that "[i]t surely could not inspire faith in our judicial system to hold that a criminal conviction, upon which society may deprive a defendant of his liberty, or indeed very life, is not worthy of the same preclusive effect as may be accorded an ordinary civil judgment."⁴⁰

The states that have adopted the majority...