Case Title: Muzzy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-039



Jay Edward Muzzy                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Rutland Superior Court


State of Vermont, acting by and              November Term, 1989
through the Rutland County State's           
Attorney and the Rutland County
Public Defender


Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

Michael Ledden of Medor & McCamley, Rutland, for plaintiff-appellant

Abell, Kenlan, Schwiebert & Hall, P.C., Rutland, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff sued defendant Rutland County State's Attorney
after being arrested and detained on a DWI charge that the deputy state's
attorney had previously agreed to dismiss in connection with a plea
agreement on another charge.  The deputy state's attorney who negotiated the
plea agreement neglected to secure the dismissal of the DWI charge and
plaintiff's unwarranted arrest followed.  Plaintiff appeals from an order
granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on the basis of official
immunity.  We affirm.
     Judicial officers, including prosecutors, have absolute immunity from
civil suits to the extent that the actions complained of are associated with
the judicial phase of the criminal process and are within the general
authority of the officer.  Imbler v. Pachtman,