Opinion ID: 2377073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Marvin on Branson's Malicious Prosecution Claim

Text: ¶ 24 Marvin moved for and successfully obtained summary judgment on Branson's claim for malicious prosecution. The district court concluded that Marvin was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed facts failed to demonstrate a lack of probable cause. Specifically, a claim for malicious prosecution requires proof that the party who initiated criminal proceedings did so with malice and without having probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. Here, in the context of Branson's criminal prosecution, a magistrate judge evaluated whether sufficient probable cause existed to require Branson to stand trial and concluded that there was sufficient probable cause. The trial court considered this conclusion by the magistrate judge dispositive of the matter. ¶ 25 Nevertheless, the trial court also recognized that a finding of probable cause in the criminal proceeding may not collaterally estop a malicious prosecution claim. Therefore, the trial court undertook its own independent analysis of probable cause. The court noted that there was no dispute that Branson's driving with Marvin hanging on the outside of his truck qualified as an assault and that there were not sufficient material facts to support [Branson's innocence]. Accordingly, the court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate based on Branson's failure to establish a disputed issue of material fact with regard to this element of his claim. Alternatively, the trial court concluded that Branson's claim failed because he did not establish a disputed issue of material fact regarding Marvin's malice. The court noted that establishing malice does not require proof of actual spite, ill will or grudge, and that proof of wrongful or improper motive will suffice. Nevertheless, the trial court found the record was void of any evidence beyond [Branson's] speculation that [Marvin] initiated the prosecution ... for any wrongful or improper motive. The court noted the troubling affidavit of Marvin's neighbor who testified that Marvin had been faking his injuries, but found the affidavit to be insufficient proof of actual innocence or actual malice. Accordingly, the court found the lack of proof of malice to be an independent ground for granting summary judgment.