precedent permitting third parties to use a defendant’s guilty plea offensively in a subsequent civil action. For these reasons, we hold EMCC can use Van Haaften’s Alford plea to first-degree theft to prevent Van Haaften from denying or relitigating the essential elements of that offense. D. The Essential Elements of Van Haaften’s Plea. Van Haaften’s plea to first-degree theft only has preclusive eff 005 WL 5290464 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2005) (“The greater weight of authority ... counsels in favor of denying the use of collateral estoppel on the issue of damages where ... the elements of the crimes did not include specific minimum amounts required to convict defendant of false claims.”), aff'd, 205 Fed. Appx. 155 (4th Cir.2006); State v. Thompson, 138 Or.App. 247, 908 P.2d 329, 331 (1995) (<HOLDING>). But see Benedick v. Mohr, 233 Ill.App.3d 903,
holding that in civil theft claim once jury sets the amount of actual damages it is a ministerial act for the trial court to triple those damages and enter final judgment in that amount holding defendants plea to indictment alleging 8000 theft was not an admission to the theft amount holding that defendants auto theft conviction could serve to support his conviction for auto theft as a class c felony and as a prior unrelated felony conviction under the habitual offender statute holding treble damages under the civil theft statute are punitive holding that theft victims were not directly injured by a money launderers subsequent activities because only after the theft occurred and the semiconductors were sold could tran launder the proceeds