Case Name: Willie WATSON v. CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN, INC.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1988-04-12
Citations: 527 So. 2d 979
Docket Number: No. CA-8869
Parties: Willie WATSON v. CHURCH’S FRIED CHICKEN, INC.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, KLEES and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 527
Pages: 979–982

Head Matter:
Willie WATSON v. CHURCH’S FRIED CHICKEN, INC.
No. CA-8869.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
April 12, 1988.
On Rehearing June 7, 1988.
Thomas E. Dunn, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellee.
Arthur J. Lentini, Hall, Lentini, Moule-doux & Wimberly, Metairie, for defendant-appellant.
Before SCHOTT, KLEES and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
Plaintiff sued Church's for damages for malicious prosecution and defamation. After a trial by jury he recovered $44,000. Defendant has appealed.
Plaintiff and his wife went to Church's on January 21,1984 to purchase some food. The wife went inside to place the order while plaintiff waited outside. Police arrived and arrested plaintiff for robbing Church's on some previous date. After plaintiff made one appearance in court the charges were dropped. In this court Church's assigns only two errors. It claims the trial court erred in admitting in evidence over defendant's objection a police report and the District Attorney's screening report and in rendering judgment without proof that Church's employees had made a complaint leading to plaintiffs arrest.
As to the first assignment defendant argues that the introduction of the documents violated the rule against hearsay because they were offered to prove the truth that plaintiff was arrested and that the charges were dropped. If the court erred in admitting these documents the error was harmless. By his own testimony corroborated by his wife's plaintiff established he was arrested in the parking lot and taken to jail by the police. He remained in jail for a few days until he could make bail. Also by their testimony along with other witnesses they established that they hired a lawyer and attended a hearing at which they established an alibi for plaintiff, and the court dismissed the charges. There is no question about the arrest and termination of the prosecution. The documents were cumulative at best.
By its other assignment Church's contends plaintiff failed to prove that its employee caused him to be arrested. Plaintiff testified that his wife had gone into the restaurant only for some okra and it took such a long time that he went in and asked her if she placed the order. When she said she had he returned to his car in the lot. He testified, "About 15, 10 minutes after about 4 or 5 police cars pulled up and they go in the place and they come back out and they grabbed me_" The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from these facts is that the people working for Church's accused him of robbing them previously and caused the police to arrest him. Plaintiff also answered this question affirmatively:
After this arrest occurred at some point you were able to meet the employee from Church's Fried Chicken that claimed that you were the one that robbed the store; is that correct?
We have concluded that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that it was more probable than not that the employees of Church's called the police and pointed plaintiff out as the man who previously robbed them.
Having concluded that defendant's assignments of error have no merit we affirm the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, Judge,
concurs.
I respectfully concur.
Although I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority, I have serious reservations about the propriety of the award for malicious prosecution.