# Lassiter v. District of Columbia

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · June 28, 1982 · 447 A.2d 456

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9715840

## Case

- **Full name:** Albert LASSITER, Et Al., Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 28, 1982
- **Citations:** 447 A.2d 456; 1982 D.C. App. LEXIS 378
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pryor
- **Judges:** Nebeker, Ferren, Pryor
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9715840

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying judicial estoppel to the sworn testimony of a juvenile in his juvenile criminal case, barring consideration of inconsistent testimony in a civil suit
- applying judicial estoppel to bar defendant from advancing different set of facts than those to which he had testified under oath in earlier criminal trial
- applying judicial estoppel doctrine in juvenile case

## Opinion text

PRYOR, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority opinion. Our holding in this case reflects an unusual situation and therefore deserves a word of caution.
Appellant, a juvenile at the time, was arrested without a warrant and charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and assault upon a police officer. The first charge was dismissed by the prosecutor in the Juvenile Court. Appellant was found guilty of the latter offense. Subsequently, in the instant action, appellant filed this suit alleging assault and false arrest by the officer who apprehended him.
When the judge in juvenile court heard the circumstances surrounding the confrontation between appellant and the police officer, and found appellant guilty of assault on the officer, I certainly agree that the effect of that ruling was to credit the officer’s description of the events and to reject appellant’s version. Appellant is therefore precluded, in a civil context, from presenting a new version of the facts in an effort to relitigate the original question or to attempt to raise new issues. Thus I would affirm the dismissal of the action for tor-tious assault.
Because the narcotics charge was voluntarily dismissed by the prosecutor, the officer’s justification or basis for arrest was never explored in the juvenile proceedings. *463 The record is silent regarding the allegation of false arrest. Thus, the unusual and probably rare posture of this case requires us to remand it to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court should determine, on an appropriate record, whether the question
is clear as a matter of law or should be submitted to finders of fact.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9715840. Public record. Not legal advice.