 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Castro v. State4/8/1998
ents: (1) that the issue decided in the prior proceeding was exactly the same as the one to be precluded in the later proceeding, (2) that there was a decision on the merits of that issue in the prior proceeding, and (3) that there is a mutuality of parties between the prior and the later proceedings. See State v. Williams, 855 P.2d 1337, 1342 (Alaska App. 1993). The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving the elements of the claim by creating "a record sufficient to reveal the controlling facts and pinpoint the exact issues litigated in the prior action". Bignell v. Wise Mechanical Contractors, 720 P.2d 490, 494 (Alaska 1986).
Castro did not raise his collateral estoppel claim in the trial court, nor is the trial court record sufficient to allow us to resolve the three elements of Castro's claim. Accordingly, we conclude that Castro did not preserve his collateral estoppel claim.
Conclusion
In both the Fairbanks and the Bethel cases, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|