See also CONVICTIIONS; JUDGMENTS; NON-PROSECUTION
SENTENCING—Other Criminal Acts; VERDICTS

1.  Generally

That a defendant has been acquitted in a prior case is obviously pertnent to a claim of double jeopardy or res judicata.{footnote}E.g., United States v. Nat’l Assoc. of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485 (1950) (acquittal in criminal case not res judicata in subsequent civil case due to diferent burdens of proof).{/footnote}  Otherwise, an acquittal is generally held irrelevant in a subsequent proceeding based on the same facts, whether civil{footnote}Shatz v. American Surety Co. of America, 295 S.W.2d 809, 813-14 (Ky. 1955); Crosier v. Hunt, 522 S.W.2d 453 (Ky. App. 1975); Hatch v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 930 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1997) (stating general rule, holding insured’s acquittal of arson charges inadmissible in suit for bad faith failure to settle).
Shatz v. American Surety Co. of New York, 295 S.W.2d 809 (Ky. 1955); Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police, 525 A.2d 460, 462 (Pa. Commw. 1987) (administrative proceeding challenging discharge); State v. Desirey, {/footnote} or criminal.{footnote}United States v. Viserto, 596 F.2d 531, 537 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 841 (1979); U.S. v. Jones, 808 F.2d 561, 566-67 (7th Cir. 1986); Prince v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d 118, 122 (8th Cir. 1992) (petition for habeas corpus); U.S. v. Sutton, 732 F.2d 1483, 1492 (10th Cir. 1984).{/footnote}  As one court has stated, an acquittal

does not prove innocence but rather merely indicates that the prior prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt at least one element of the crime.{footnote}U.S. v. Kerley, 643 F.2d 299, 300-01 (5th Cir. 1981), citing McCormick § 318 (2d ed.); 4 Weinstein’s Evidence & 803(22) (02), at 803-280 (1979).{/footnote}

Judgments of acquittal in another case are also hearsay,{footnote}Prince v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d 118, 122 (8th Cir. 1992); U.S. v. Sutton, 732 F.2d 1483, 1492 (10th Cir. 1984); U.S. v. Irvin, 787 F.2d 1506, 1516-17 (11th Cir. 1986).
See also U.S. v. Jones, 808 F.2d 561, 567 (7th Cir. 1986),{/footnote} and do not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.{footnote}U.S. v. Irvin, 787 F.2d 1506, 1517 (11th Cir. 1986).
Cf. FRE 803(22) (hearsay exception for convictions). {/footnote}  Finally, evidence of a defendant’s prior acquittal has also been held inadmissible on the grounds that it would be unduly prejudicial.{footnote}U.S. v. Kerley, 643 F.2d 299, 300-01 (5th Cir. 1981); U.S. v. Jones, 808 F.2d 561, 567 (7th Cir. 1986).{/footnote}

In a personal injury action arising from an altercation during a criminal arrest, it is irrelevent that the arrestee was acquitted of the charges for which he was arrested.{footnote}City of Advance v. Maryland Casualty Company, 302 S.W.2d 28, 34 (Mo. 1957) (in suit for assault and battery in connection with arrest for speeding, plaintiff’s acquittal on the speeding charge held irrelevant); Billings v. Stanley, 759 S.W.2d 277, 280 (Mo. App. 1988) (in suit for personal injuries allegedly arising from altercation at truck weighing station, plaitniff trucker’s acquittal as to hauling overweight load irrelevant and properly excluded).{/footnote}

 § 2.  Arson Cases

For the reasons described in § 1, an insured’s acquittal of criminal charges for arson is inadmissible in a subsequent civil suit to determine coverage{footnote}Galbraith v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 464 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1972); McSweeney v. Utica Fire Ins. Co., 224 F.2d 327 (4th Cir. 1955); Williams v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 230 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1956).
C.L. Maddox, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 567 N.E.2d 749 (Ill. App. 1991); Elliott v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 701 S.W.2d 462, 466 (Mo. App. 1985); Greenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co., 235 A.2d 576 (Pa. 1967), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 907 (1968); Tennessee Odin Ins. Co. v. Dickey, 228 S.W.2d 73 (Tenn. 1950); Hatch v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 930 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1997)
CHECK Dawson v. Miller, 594 So. 2d 970, 972 (La. App. 1992); Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 510 N.W.2d 204, 210-211 (Minn App. 1993);{/footnote} or for bad faith failure to pay a claim.{footnote}Wheat v. Continental Casualty Co., 652 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tenn. 1983) (reversing); Hatch v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 930 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1997){/footnote}

3.  Malicious Prosecution Cases

One element of a claim for malicious posecution is that the underlying criminal proceedings were terminated in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore allowed to introduce evidence that he or she was acquitted in the underlying criminal proceedings.{footnote}E.g., Horn v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 615 A.2d 663 (N.J. Super. 1992), certif. denied, 627 A.2d 1141 (N.J.); Wheat v. Continental Casualty Co., 652 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tenn. 1983) (dicta).  See generally Annot., 59 A.L.R.2d 1413 § 2a.{/footnote}  Some courts have held that evidence of the plaitniff’s acquittal also may be considered for the purpose of showing that there was no probable cause for prosecution,{footnote}Goehring v. Wright, 858 F. Supp. 989, 1001 n. 37 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Olson v. Independent Order of Foresters, 324 P.2d 1012 (Utah 1958).
Contra Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors, 402 So.2d 958 (Ala. 1981); Kezer v. Dwelle-Kaiser Co., 222 App. Div. 350, 225 N.Y.S. 722 (1927); Minutelli v. Boranian, 668 A.2d 317 (R.I. 1995); Miessner v. All Dakota Ins. Associates, 515 N.W.2d 198 (S.D. 1994).
See generally Annot., 59 A.L.R.2d 1413 § 2a.{/footnote} and some have gone so far as to hold that an acquittal is prima facie evidence that probable cause was lacking.{footnote}Allen v. Ritter, 235 So. 2d 253 (Miss. 1970); Hanson v. Snohomish, 852 P.2d 295 (Wash. 1993). 
See also Miera v Waltemeyer, 642 P.2d 191 (N.M. App. 1982), cert. quashed, 644 P.2d 1040 (N.M.) (acquittal sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment).
See generally Annot., 59 A.L.R.2d 1413 § 2a.{/footnote}  Evidence of an acquittsal standing alone, however, is not conclusive as to whether probable cause existed.{footnote}Goehring v. Wright, 858 F. Supp. 989, 1001 n. 37 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
See generally Annot., 59 A.L.R.2d 1413 § 2a.{/footnote}

Bibliography

Annot., 59 A.L.R.2d 1413 § 2a
Annotation, Conviction or Acquittal as Evidence, 18 A.L.R. 2d 1287, 1315 (1951).