- 80 -
partnerships by all the partners.” Petitioners’ statement is
factually misleading. As previously addressed, Jay Hoyt was
convicted of defrauding the individual investors, not the
partnerships. Furthermore, Jay Hoyt’s theft from the individual
partners was not ipso facto a theft from the partnerships.
The issue presented in Jay Hoyt’s criminal prosecution was
whether he conspired to “defraud thousands of investors.” There
is no dispute that the individual investors were defrauded of
some or all of the money they contributed. However, Jay Hoyt was
not charged with any crime against the sheep partnerships. The
issue in the instant cases is whether a “theft” occurred from the
nine sheep partnerships. The issue of thefts from the sheep
partnerships involved herein is not identical to an issue
litigated and decided in Jay Hoyt’s criminal trial. The two
issues are separate and distinct. Therefore, petitioners have
failed to satisfy the first condition required under Peck to
apply collateral estoppel. Consequently, we need not address the
remaining Peck conditions of collateral estoppel.
For the reasons stated above, petitioners are precluded from
asserting collateral estoppel against respondent with respect to
the issue of a theft from the sheep partnerships for any of the
years at issue.
b. Judicial Estoppel
Petitioners assert that judicial estoppel should apply
Page: Previous 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011