US Supreme Court may act on Sparks

by Tom Nadeau

The public may learn today whether the US Supreme Court will consider Dustin William Sparks’ request that it overturn a disputed lower court ruling that he can be tried for murder in the shooting deaths of two men in September 2005.

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 died during an attempted medical marijuana robbery in Olivehurst, a suburb of Marysville.

Huggins claimed self-defense. He was charged with first-degree murder. A Yuba County jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter.

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’s Office claims 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

The defense argued that the state Supreme Court had long ago prohibited “felony-murder prosecution on the ground of vicarious liability collateral estoppel as recognized by [a previous ruling in] People v. Taylor.”

Stopping estoppel? ...

“Collateral estoppel” is a common law doctrine that prevents relitigating an issue. The legal premise is that once a court has decided an issue of fact or law, then that decision precludes relitigation of the same issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. It seeks to prevent legal harassment or the abuse of judicial resources.

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 would appear to be over-ruling its own earlier decision in Taylor..

Yuba County Superior Court Judge Kathleen O’Connor then ordered Sparks’ trial for the double murder to proceed. It was to start this month.

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.

If the US Supreme Court accepts the writ and rules on it, this obscure case from Yuba County, Calif. could wind up resulting in a stellar legal decision ranking with, say, the historic Miranda ruling

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark 1966 US Supreme Court decision (5–4) that held that inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rights a part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights.

The defense’s writ was crafted and written by attorney S. Michelle May of the Central California Appellate Program. Her elegantly-written, bluntly-worded 40-page petition 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 lower court (and the judges and prosecutors plying their trades within them) can, upon their own whims, resurrect legal issues that the US Supreme Court had debated, decided and declared dead and buried long, long ago..

The defense has already received an initial response from the land’s highest court indicating it was mulling whether to take Sparks appeal under submission.

In an earlier hearing, Scott told O’Connor of the USSC’s pending notice. He asked her to postpone the trial at least until the High Court decided. That decision, Scott said, was expected Sept. 27 – today.

O’Connor was reluctant to delay the Sparks trial any longer, but agreed to hold off setting any specific court dates until now.

Sparks has been held in custody since the killings.