People v. Camp

Opinion

COUGHLIN, J.

This case comes before this court upon transfer after certification by the superior court following its affirmance on appeal of a judgment by the municipal court convicting defendant of the offense of failure to provide for his minor child. (Pen. Code, § 1471; rule 62, Cal. Rules of Court.) Defendant contested the issue of paternity. The trial court excluded all of his evidence on this issue under the doctrine of collateral estoppel by judgment in that previously he had been convicted in

[653]

another case, upon a plea of guilty, of failure to provide for the same child. The issue on appeal is whether this order of exclusion was error.

In California a conviction following trial upon a plea of not guilty in a case charging a defendant with failure to provide for his minor child, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel by judgment, is conclusive on the issue of paternity and precludes retrial of that issue in a subsequent action on a similar charge.

(People

v.

Majado,

22 Cal.App.2d 323 [70 P.2d 1015] approved in

Teitelbaum Furs, Inc.

v.

Dominion Ins. Co.,

58 Cal.2d 601, 606 [25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439].) The prosecution contends the same rule applies where the conviction in the first case was upon a plea of guilty.

Pertinent to the issue is the statement by the Supreme Court in

Teitelbaum Furs, Inc.

v.

Dominion Ins. Co., supra,

58 Cal.2d 601, 605-606, that: “A plea of guilty is admissible in a subsequent civil action on the independent ground that it is an admission. It would not serve the policy underlying collateral estoppel, however, to make such a plea conclusive. ‘The rule is based upon the sound public policy of limiting litigation by preventing a party who has had one fair trial on an issue from again drawing it into controversy.’