COA: Collateral estoppel not applicable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence because the defendant couldn't prove collateral estoppel precluded the trial court from denying his motion.

In Joshua Perez-Grahovac v. State of Indiana, No. 22A05-0712-CR-703, Joshua Perez-Grahovac brought an interlocutory appeal, arguing because his roommate's motion to suppress evidence was granted, his motion should be granted, too.

Perez-Grahovac and his roommate, Angela Phillips, were arrested for various drug charges after police obtained a search warrant after a period of surveillance of their apartment, a trash pull of their residence, and Perez-Grahovac's previous statements to police that he was a cocaine dealer.

Perez-Grahovac filed his motion to suppress evidence because he believed the search violated the United States and Indiana Constitutions and the probable cause affidavit didn't contain sufficient facts. His motion was denied.

Phillips also filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court granted without conducting further hearings on the motion. The only evidence Perez-Grahovac introduced to support his motion to reconsider was Phillips' motion to suppress and the chronological case summary stating the court granted the motion.

Perez-Grahovac argues his motion should be granted based on Jennings v. State, 714 N.E.2d 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), but his case is distinguishable from Jennings. The state hadn't stipulated it had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the searches in Phillips' case or that the searches in the roommates' cases are the same. The trial court's grant of Phillips' motion doesn't include findings of fact or conclusions of law, so the appellate court can't determine whether the judge who granted Phillips's motion based her decision "upon an issue or fact other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration," wrote Judge Carr Darden, citing Jennings.

Perez-Grahovac didn't present a sufficient record to permit the appellate court to determine whether collateral estoppel should apply.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.