Opinion ID: 1659002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the plaintiff failed to prove all the necessary elements required for a malicious prosecution claim?

Text: Super Stop argues that Rice failed to meet all of the necessary elements required to sustain a malicious prosecution claim. The elements of malicious criminal prosecution are: (1) the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either criminal or civil; (2) by, or at the insistence of the defendants; (3) the termination of such proceeding in plaintiff's favor; (4) malice in instituting the proceedings; (5) want of probable cause for the proceedings; and (6) the suffering of damages as a result of the action or prosecution complained of. Bankston v. Pass Road Tire Center, Inc., 611 So.2d 998, 1004 (Miss. 1992); C & C Trucking Co. v. Smith, 612 So.2d 1092, 1099-1100 (Miss. 1992); Page v. Wiggins, 595 So.2d 1291, 1293 (Miss. 1992); Strong v. Nicholson, 580 So.2d 1288, 1293 (Miss. 1991); Miss. Road Supply v. Zurich-American Ins. Co., 501 So.2d 412, 414 (Miss. 1987); Royal Oil Co., Inc. v. Wells, 500 So.2d 439, 442 (Miss. 1986); Pugh v. Easterling, 367 So.2d 935, 937 (Miss. 1979). To prevail in a malicious prosecution suit, the plaintiff must prove all six elements of the tort by a preponderance of the evidence. In the case at bar, Super Stop admitted the first three elements to wit: that it had instituted, through its representative, criminal proceedings against Rice, and that the criminal proceedings were terminated in favor of Rice when the grand jury returned a no bill against Rice on the grand larceny charges. Thus, Rice only had to prove: (1) that Super Stop had malice in instituting the proceedings, (2) that Super Stop had no probable cause for the proceedings, and (3) that he suffered damages or injury as a result of the prosecution. Super Stop contends that Rice failed in his attempts to establish each of these three elements. In Mississippi, to determine if a defendant acted with malice in instituting a criminal proceeding, we must look to the defendant's subjective state of mind. Owens v. Kroger Co., 430 So.2d 843, 846 (Miss. 1983). `Malice' in the law of malicious prosecution is used in an artificial and legal sense and applied to a prosecution instituted primarily for a purpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice. Benjamin v. Hooper Elec. Supply Co., Inc., 568 So.2d 1182, 1191 (Miss. 1990). Circumstantial evidence may prove the element of malice, or the jury may infer malice from the facts of the case. C & C Trucking, 612 So.2d at 1100. This Court has also held that the absence of probable cause for a prosecution is circumstantial evidence of malice, and the jury may infer malice from a finding that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of another person's rights. Id. Furthermore, malice is a question of fact to be determined by the jury unless only one conclusion may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. C & C Trucking, 612 So.2d at 1100; Benjamin, 568 So.2d at 1191; Owens, 430 So.2d at 848. As grounds for malice, Rice testified that Hammond prosecuted him because Rice had Hammond's son or a relative arrested at the store on a Friday night before the theft occurred. He further testified that on Sunday night after the theft, the person that Rice had arrested on Friday night came into the store wearing a name tag with Hammond on it. To dispute this testimony, Faye Lundy, a co-manager at Rice's usual store, testified that she knew Hammond and that Hammond's oldest child was only 10 or 11 years of age and lived in Texas with Hammond's ex-wife. His other two children were not old enough to be in the third grade. Lundy believed that Hammond had no other relatives in Jackson, but she indicated that she did not know all of Hammond's family and that she could not say whether or not someone was at the Briarwood store on that Friday night. Hammond was not present at trial to rebut Rice's allegations, but his stipulated testimony was that he intended no malice toward Rice, and he only wanted to be certain that justice was done. The absence of probable cause for the prosecution is or can be circumstantial evidence of malice. C & C Trucking, 612 So.2d at 1100. The lack of probable cause for the prosecution may give rise to the inference that the defendant acted with malice. Consideration of the facts apparent to the observer at the time that prosecution is initiated determines probable cause. Owens, 430 So.2d at 846. Probable cause requires the concurrence of an honest belief in the guilt of the person accused and reasonable grounds for such belief. C & C Trucking, 612 So.2d at 1100; Strong, 580 So.2d at 1294; Royal Oil, 500 So.2d at 443; Harvill v. Tabor, 240 Miss. 750, 755, 128 So.2d 863, 865 (1961). One is as essential as the other. Bankston, 611 So.2d at 1006. This Court has declared that unfounded suspicion and conjecture are not proper bases for finding probable cause. Benjamin, 568 So.2d at 1190. When the facts are undisputed, it is the function of the court to determine whether probable cause existed. Benjamin, 568 So.2d at 1190 (citing Owens, 430 So.2d at 846). However, when the facts and reasonable inferences deduced from those facts are in dispute, the issue becomes a jury question and it is within their province to determine based upon proper instructions. Benjamin, 568 So.2d at 1190; Owens, 430 So.2d at 846. In addressing the proof required to establish a lack of probable cause, this Court has stated: Want of probable cause may be proven by circumstantial evidence, but it is ordinarily necessary for the plaintiff to show circumstances from which the absence of probable cause may be inferred. Royal Oil, 500 So.2d at 444. If the evidence is such that the jury could have believed the prosecution was instituted without probable cause then that issue should go to the jury. Benjamin, 568 So.2d at 1190. Cf. Royal Oil, 500 So.2d at 444 (if evidence is such that jury could have believed that the prosecution was instituted without probable cause, the judgment appealed from should not be disturbed). Super Stop argues that it had probable cause to institute proceedings against Rice for grand larceny. The stipulated testimony of Hammond indicated that he signed an affidavit to be issued against Rice because he believed that he had probable cause to suspect that Rice stole the missing money. Hammond based this belief on the following factors: (1) the plaintiff failed the polygraph and the other two employees passed the polygraph, (2) the plaintiff was one of three people who had keys to the store, (3) the plaintiff worked the last shift and was responsible for the missing money, and (4) the plaintiff showed deception when questioned about the missing money on the polygraph. In addition, the door to the store and the safe showed no signs of forced entry, and Rice worked the last shift at the store. This Court has stated that where a reasonable person would investigate further before instituting a proceeding, the failure to do so is an absence of probable cause. Benjamin, 568 So.2d at 1191 (emphasis added). To determine whether a reasonable person would have investigated further before instituting felony proceedings against Rice, we need only look at the proof available to Super Stop at the time it caused the arrest of Rice. Other employees and possibly past employees had keys to the store. Apparently, not all employees who had keys to the store or had access to the keys were subjected to polygraph examinations. It is possible that the other two employees who took polygraph examinations and passed did so after Rice's arrest and not before. No evidence indicates that Super Stop sought the advice of an attorney before instituting criminal proceedings. Not one witness was found that could implicate Rice in the theft. None of the missing money was found in Rice's possession. In fact, the only evidence unique to implicating Rice as the thief as opposed to any other employee was the results of a polygraph examination conducted by West, whom Super Stop had employed on a regular basis since 1981. At trial, West admitted that polygraph examinations can result in erroneous conclusions and are not 100% accurate [1] . Polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence and should be given only minimal weight when used to substantiate probable cause. We continue to follow the admonition of Thorson v. State, 653 So.2d 876 (Miss. 1994) (results of polygraph tests have not reached that stage in scientific reliability justifying their competency as substantive evidence). Thus, from the foregoing facts, the jury could reasonably have believed that Rice had done no wrong and that there was no reasonable basis for a belief of the contrary. It is apparent from the verdict that the jury resolved conflicts in the testimony in favor of Rice. When the testimony of the witnesses is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury finding of no probable cause is not an unreasonable one. Royal Oil, 500 So.2d at 444. As far as damages are concerned, Super Stop stated that Rice failed to establish this element of the tort of malicious prosecution. However, nowhere within this assignment of error did Super Stop discuss the merits of this argument or offer any authority to support such a contention. Evidence adduced at trial shows that Rice was arrested, handcuffed at the main office of his employer, carried to the police station, interrogated, booked, fingerprinted, and charged with grand larceny. Money expended by Rice or on his behalf because of the criminal charge included $585 to the bonding company, a wrecker fee of $25, a vehicle impound fee of $40, a $120 fee to the City of Jackson for an unknown fee, a fine of $197 for marijuana that was found in his possession upon his arrest, and $1,500 to hire an attorney to represent him in his defense. Also, Rice testified that the prosecution was bad on his nerves, that his self-esteem and social life suffered, and that he was unable to secure employment as a result of the prosecution. In addition, Rice testified that he did not have any income in 1988, and his income for 1989 and 1990 was reduced because of his inability to obtain employment. Rice's total income while employed at Super Stop in 1987 was $11,500-$12,000. Hazel Rice, Rice's mother, corroborated some of Rice's testimony when she stated that the arrest had a devastating effect on her son, that he was in a state of shock, that he was depressed, that it made him nervous, that he had no social life thereafter, and that the prosecution turned him against society and the law. She also testified that he would go to the unemployment office every week after the incident, would apply for various jobs, and would find only menial or temporary jobs until he found his present job. Unless the reviewing court can say that no reasonable jury could have assessed the damages awarded based on the proof at trial, the award must be left undisturbed. City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So.2d 475, 481 (Miss. 1983). Moreover, when a jury returns a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, this Court resolves all conflicts in the evidence in the plaintiff's favor. Id. at 477. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at trial, it appears that a reasonable jury could have awarded damages in this case. Our cases have long recognized that a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action may recover damages for harm to reputation resulting from the accusation brought against him and mental anguish or distress causally resulting from the malicious prosecution. Royal Oil, 500 So.2d at 448. Ample evidence existed to prove the element of damages.