Opinion ID: 1764507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: 3(d DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT INSTRUCTED ON PROBABLE CAUSE NEEDED FOR NEAL HOFF TO INITIATE A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION?

Text: The instruction on this issue given by the trial court is taken verbatim from No. 401, NDJI. Stella argues that No. 107, NDJI is the only instruction that should have been given because Neal Hoff commenced the criminal prosecution against Stella, based on the advice of the state's attorney, who was also the attorney for the Bank. We do not consider the instructions as given to be prejudicial error. The Note at the bottom of No. 107, NDJI, states: This instruction should be given in any case where the Defendant [who is Neal Hoff, in this case], having the burden of persuasion, seeks to establish the absence of malice or the presence of probable cause by advice of counsel. It is clear from the above language that No. 107, NDJI, would have properly been requested by Neal Hoff, the defendant to Stella's counterclaim. The absence of an instruction regarding the initiation of a criminal prosecution on the advice of counsel was, however, not prejudicial to Stella because such instruction is for purposes of a defense against a charge of malicious prosecution.