. Jimenez (1981) 130 Ariz. 138 [ 634 P.2d 950, 952-953] [both distinguishing and disagreeing with Taylor]; Jared v. State (1986) 17 Ark. App. 223 [ 707 S.W.2d 325, 328] ["The rule in Taylor simply is contrary to that which governs in Arkansas."]; People v. Allee (Colo. 1987) 740 P.2d 1, 5-6 [agreeing with "almost all jurisdictions [that] continue to require mutuality of parties in criminal proceedings" and dismissing Taylor with a "[b]ut see" citation]; State v. Santiago (2005) 275 Conn. 192 [ 881 A.2d 222, 229-230, fn. 21] [finding Taylor not persuasive]; Potts v. State (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1981) 403 So.2d 443, 445 [rejecting Taylor and stating that "the acquittal of appellant's confederate of the assault has no bearing on the disposition of the charge against appellant"]; People v.Franklin (1995) 167 Ill.2d 1 [212 Ill.Dec. 153, 656 N.E.2d 750, 755] [following what it described as "[m]ost" courts in refusing to apply collateral estoppel and dismissing Taylor with a "but see" citation]; Commonwealth v. Scala (1979) 8 Mass.App.Ct. 202 [ 392 N.E.2d 869, 873] [rejecting the application of collateral estoppel and dismissing Taylor with a "[c]ontrast" citation]; People v. Paige (1983) 131 Mich.App. 34 [ 345 N.W.2d 639, 641] [finding Taylor not persuasive]; State v. Hall (Mo.Ct.App. 1985) 687 S.W.2d 924, 926 [rejecting a collateral estoppel contention without citing Taylor]; see also State v. Hall, at pp. 930-931 (cone. opn. of Clark, J.) [discussing the issue in greater detail and citing Taylor but rejecting it in favor of Standefer]; Larsen v. State (1977) 93 Nev. 397 [ 566 P.2d 413, 414 fn. 2] [saying that generally collateral estoppel does not apply in criminal cases, citing Taylor for the proposition that "[t]here may be special circumstances which warrant deviation from this rule," but finding no such circumstances in the case]; State v. Campbell (1982) 56 Ore.App. 527 [ 642 P.2d 346, 348] [rejecting Taylor in favor of the "policy considerations" articulated in Standefer, and concluding "that the rule requiring m

Most jurisdictions retain the requirement of mutuality in the criminal area. See State v. Jiminez, 130 Ariz. 138, 634 P.2d 950 (1981); State v. Wilson, 236 Iowa 429, 19 N.W.2d 232 (1945); Commonwealth v. Scala, 8 Mass. App. 202, 392 N.E.2d 869 (1979); Larsen v. State, 93 Nev. 397, 566 P.2d 413 (1977); People v. Felton, 95 Misc.2d 960, 408 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y.Sup. 1978); Cleveland v. Ryan, 106 Ohio App. 110, 148 N.E.2d 691 (1958). See generally, 9 A.L.R.3d 203 (1966).

Following his trial and conviction, the defendant sought review in the Appeals Court, which affirmed his conviction. Commonwealth v. Scala, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 202 (1979). We granted the defendant's petition for further appellate review.

1999); People v. Hall, 279 Ill.App.3d 602, 664 N.E.2d 1122, 216 Ill.Dec. 194, (1996) (holding nonmutual collateral estoppel inapplicable to evidentiary ruling by court); State v. Secret, 246 Neb. 1002, 524 N.W.2d 551 (1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 583 N.W.2d 31 (1998); People v. Allee, 740 P.2d 1, 10 (Colo.1987); Kott v. Alaska, 678 P.2d 386, 393, n. 10 (1984) (citing State v. Jimenez, 130 Ariz. 138, 634 P.2d 950 (1981); State v. Wilson, 236 Iowa 429, 19 N.W.2d 232 (1945); Commonwealth v. Scala, 8 Mass.App. 202, 392 N.E.2d 869 (1979); Larsen v. State, 93 Nev. 397, 566 P.2d 413 (1977); People v. Felton, 95 Misc.2d 960, 408 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1978); City of Cleveland v. Ryan, 106 Ohio App. 110, 148 N.E.2d 691 (1958)); Michigan v. Paige, 131 Mich.App. 34, 345 N.W.2d 639 (1983) (per curiam) (holding conviction of principal for lesser crime of second degree murder did not preclude conviction of accomplice for first degree murder); State v. Olson, 478 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.Ct.App.1991). See generally, 9 A.L.R.3d 203 (1966).

See 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.2(f), at 524 (1978); C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 676, at 130 (1969); cf. Stepanov v. Gavrilovich, 594 P.2d 30, 36 (Alaska 1979) (effect of earlier ruling by different judge on a later decision under law of the case doctrine). Compare Commonwealth v. Scala, 8 Mass. App. 202, 392 N.E.2d 869 (1979), aff'd, 380 Mass. 500, 404 N.E.2d 83 (1980) (decision at an earlier suppression hearing not binding at subsequent hearing) with State v. Gonzales, 75 N.J. 181, 380 A.2d 1128 (1977) (decision binding). The relevant facts must be gleaned from the affidavit itself, since no oral testimony was taken by the magistrate.

Therefore, it is not necessary for us to resolve the conflict which exists between those cases which hold that these doctrines do attach to rulings in suppression hearings and those cases which hold that they do not. Compare Commonwealth v. Scala, 8 Mass. App. 202, 392 N.E.2d 869 (1979), aff'd, 380 Mass. 500, 404 N.E.2d 83 (1980) (denying collateral estoppel effect to an earlier suppression) with State v. Gonzalez, 75 N.J. 181, 380 A.2d 1128 (1977) (allowing it). The sole issue on appeal, therefore, concerns the applicability of Alaska Rule of Evidence 412(2) to this case.

Where the state does have an opportunity to obtain review of an adverse decision, we express no opinion regarding the propriety of a court's application of nonmutual collateral estoppel. Compare Commonwealth v. Scala, 8 Mass. App. 202, 392 N.E.2d 869 (1979), aff'd, 404 N.E.2d 83 (Mass. 1980) (denying nonmutual collateral estoppel effect to an earlier suppression hearing) with State v. Gonzalez, 75 N.J. 181, 380 A.2d 1128 (1977) (allowing it).