State v. Brabson

In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 444, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), the Supreme Court said we should approach criminal collateral estoppel “with realism and rationality.” Because the majority departs from reality to affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I must dissent.

I

First, it must be made clear that the majority opinion never addresses the grounds for review.1 Appellee contends the Court of Appeals erred in re-affirming the holding in Burrows v. Texas Dept of Public Safety, 740 S.W.2d 19, 20-21 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987, no pet.). The Court of Appeals relied on Burrows…