Sparks certiorari decision delayed a week

by Tom Nadeau

It appears the US Supreme Court will not know, yea or nay, whether it will consider the writ of certiorari recently filed by Dustin William Sparks for one more week, his defense attorney told a Yuba County Superior Court judge today.

Defense Attorney Justin Scott said information posted on Monday indicated the high court justices were still weighing its next step in Sparks v. California, USSC #10-5165 and did not expect to have a final answer until Oct. 4.

Further action nixed for one week ...

Judge Kathleen O’Connor postponed further action in the Yuba County case of People v. Sparks until after that date.

Sparks is asking the USSC to review and overturn a disputed lower court ruling that he can be tried for murder in the shooting deaths of two men in September 2005. Sparks has been held in custody since the killings.

The California Supreme Court opined earlier this year (#S164614) that Sparks could be tried for the deaths of Scott Davis and Christopher Hance, even though Michael Huggins already had been convicted of killing the men while Sparks was elsewhere.

The two were killed during an attempted medical marijuana robbery in the Marysville, Calif. suburb of Olivehurst.

Huggins claimed self-defense. He was charged with first-degree murder. A Yuba County jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter. Sparks, on the other hand, faces a first-degree murder charge.

Sparks was one of several named accomplices. He had planned to enter the Hance property with Huggins, but backed out at the last minute, Sparks later said.

The Yuba County District Attorney asserts that Sparks was “vicariously liable” for the killings and could be tried for first-degree murder, despite the previous jury verdict that Huggins was guilty only of voluntary manslaughter

On the contrary, the defense argues, the state Supreme Court prohibited such “felony-murder prosecution on the ground of vicarious liability collateral estoppel as recognized by [a previous ruling in] People v. Taylor."

“Collateral estoppel” is a common law doctrine that prevents relitigating an already established legal issue.

The original Yuba County judge ruled in Sparks’ favor, but the prosecution appealed it to the 3rd District Court of Appeals. That decision went against Sparks causing the defense to appeal it to the state Supreme Court which issued an opinion on the issue Feb. 8, 2010.

In its new ruling against Sparks, the state Supreme Court appears to be over-ruling its own earlier decision in Taylor..

Sparks’ attorney, Justin B. Scott, appealed the state Supreme Court ruling by filing a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court – an exceedingly rare occurrence as Yuba County cases go.

The defense’s writ was drafted by Central California Appellate Program attorney S. Michelle May. In her 40-page petition, May asks the USSC justices to consider three questions:

1) When a state’s highest court overrules its own prior authority which had established that the State was prohibited from prosecuting a criminal charge, by a decision that is “unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue,” does the Due Process Clause permit the court to apply its decision retroactively in order to vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal charge?

2) When a state’s highest court overrules its own prior authority which had established that the State was prohibiting from prosecuting a criminal charge, by a decision that is contrary to a statutory mandate of the state’s legislature, does the Due Process Clause, permit the court to apply its decision retroactively in order to vacate the trial court’s dismissal of the criminal charge?

3) In light of questions (1) and (2) above, should the Superior Court’s order prohibiting the State from prosecuting petitioner vicariously for felony-murder, on a traditional basis of vicarious liability collateral estoppel recognized by the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Taylor … which was overruled retroactively in this case be affirmed?

In other words, May, Scott and Sparks are asking whether the lower court can arbitrarily revive legal issues long thought settled by earlier US Supreme Court decisions.

If it does get to the USSC, Deputy California Attorney General George M. Hendrickson will argue for the state.