Opinion ID: 491556
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence Relative to Defendant's Determination of Probable Cause

Text: 19 Ulmer first claims that the district court erred in excluding all evidence relevant to the circumstances underlying his arrest and subsequent prosecution for peace disturbance. He claims that without such relevant and probative evidence, the jury was unable to determine if the defendant acted without probable cause, an essential element of a prima facie case for malicious prosecution. Contrary to the Corporation's assertions during trial and on appeal, Ulmer furthermore argues that a judge's finding of probable cause is rebuttable when the information is based solely upon the affidavit of a complaining witness. Finally, Ulmer argues that the district court erred in excluding evidence of the circumstances underlying the store's decision to prosecute him because this evidence is relative to the element of malice in a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. 20 We agree. Clearly, much of the excluded evidence related to the issue of probable cause and malice. Under Missouri law, which governs this diversity suit, probable cause is one of the six elements of an action for malicious prosecution. Those elements are: (1) commencement of prosecution of the original proceeding against the present plaintiff; (2) defendant's legal causation of the proceedings against the present plaintiff; (3) termination of the proceedings in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) absence of probable cause for such proceedings; (5) presence of malice therein; and (6) damage to plaintiff by reason thereof. Hamilton v. Krey Packing Co., 602 S.W.2d 879, 881 (Mo.App.1980) (quoting Palermo v. Cottom, 525 S.W.2d 758, 763 (Mo.App.1975)). Case authority holds that it is customary, and indeed necessary, to present evidence of the want or existence of probable cause to the jury. It is customary    in malicious prosecution cases to consider all the circumstances preliminary to and surrounding the institution of the prosecution. Boquist v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 516 S.W.2d 769, 773 (Mo.App.1974). See also Hoene v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 487 S.W.2d 479, 483-84 (Mo.1972); Huffstutler v. Coates, 335 S.W.2d 70, 76 (Mo.1960); Randol v. Kline's, Inc., 49 S.W.2d 112, 114-15 (Mo.1932). Furthermore, Missouri courts hold that the existence or want of probable cause is an issue for the jury to decide. See Hoene, 487 S.W.2d at 484; Randol, 49 S.W.2d at 114. 21 The district court's reliance upon Brown v. Jones Store, 493 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1973), for its ruling excluding evidence related to Ulmer's arrest was misplaced. In that case, the court held that the submission of two jury instructions, allowing the jury to consider liability for false arrest and malicious prosecution separately, was proper because false arrest and malicious prosecution are different wrongs,    requir[ing] a separate factual proof,   . Id. at 41. That false arrest and malicious prosecution are separate causes of action does not mean that they do not share common elements. The court in Brown merely sought to prevent the defendant in that case from being held liable for both causes of action upon identical proof. As the court stated in Boquist, [the] defendant errs in its assumption that the allegations pertaining to matters preliminary to the instigation of prosecution interjected a separate cause of action for false arrest independent of the cause of action for malicious prosecution. 516 S.W.2d at 773. 22 The Corporation supports the district court's decision on alternative grounds, however. It claims that the evidence was properly excluded because Judge Eberwine's signed statement conclusively established the existence of probable cause for Ulmer's arrest. Ulmer argues that no prima facie case of probable cause was so established, and even if it was, he was entitled to introduce evidence to rebut it. 23 The origins of Missouri's case law on this issue may be traced to a 1907 case, Pinson v. Campbell, 124 Mo.App. 260, 101 S.W. 621 (1907). That case stated: 24 The finding of an indictment by a grand jury, or the commitment of an examining magistrate, is prima facie evidence of probable cause. On parity of reason, the filing of an information by a prosecuting attorney on his own information and belief is prima facie evidence of probable cause, but not so when the information is predicated on the affidavit of the complaining witness. 25 Id. at 624 (citation omitted). See also Marcum v. Sagehorn, 660 S.W.2d 426, 428 (Mo.App.1983); Hamilton, 602 S.W.2d at 882; Moad v. Pioneer Finance Co., 496 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Mo.1973); Huffstutler, 335 S.W.2d at 75-76; Mannisto v. Rainen Furniture Co., 295 S.W.2d 841, 845 (Mo.App.1956); Harper v. St. Joseph Lead Co., 361 Mo. 129, 140, 233 S.W.2d 835, 840 (1950); Randol, 49 S.W.2d at 114. Also, [a] judgment or finding in favor of plaintiff in the original action is conclusive evidence of probable cause, or estops defendant therein from denying the existence of probable cause, in the absence of fraud or other improper means used in obtaining the judgment   . Bonzo v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 344 Mo. 127, 133, 125 S.W.2d 75, 78 (1939). A plaintiff may rebut the prima facie case of probable cause established by the grand jury's indictment or the commitment of an examining magistrate. As stated by one court, 26 The foregoing prima facie showing of the presence of probable cause as made by plaintiff stands conclusive unless overcome by evidence that false testimony was the basis of the charge and that the falsity, if so, was discoverable upon reasonable investigation. Kvasnicka v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 350 Mo. 360, 166 S.W.2d 503, 510, 515 (1942). 27 Moad, 496 S.W.2d at 799. See also Marcum, 660 S.W.2d at 428; Hamilton, 602 S.W.2d at 882; Huffstutler, 335 S.W.2d at 76. 28 Under Pinson, because the prosecuting attorney's information was predicated upon the affidavit of the complaining witness, Richard Putnam, the information does not constitute prima facie evidence of probable cause. No Missouri case found discusses whether a judge's finding of probable cause establishes a prima facie case where that finding rests ultimately upon the affidavit of a complaining witness. 1 Here, Judge Eberwine's finding of probable cause, although allegedly resting upon consideration of facts presented to the court, rested upon the prosecuting attorney's sworn information which was itself based upon the affidavit of the complaining witness Richard Putnam. 29 We need not decide this legal issue, however, because the district court improperly prevented Ulmer from rebutting any prima facie case of probable cause Judge Eberwine's finding may have established. As stated earlier, Ulmer was prevented from introducing virtually any evidence of the circumstances surrounding his arrest and prosecution for peace disturbance to prove the absence of probable cause. Much of the evidence he sought to introduce would have had a bearing upon whether the basis of the charge, Putnam's sworn statement that Ulmer unreasonably and knowingly caused alarm to Tammy Sutton by loud and unusual noises and/or fighting, was false and reasonably discoverable by the Corporation to have been false. This evidence, which was properly admissible, included the store policy requiring security guards to make two arrests per week, proof that Ulmer was Putnam's fiftieth arrest in a twenty-five-week period, and proof that Ulmer's arrest immediately preceded Putnam's evaluation. Ulmer was thus furthermore improperly prevented from questioning Putnam on the relevant issue of the existence of a company policy of avoiding legal claims, and improperly prevented from questioning Steve Goldman, Chief Trial Assistant for the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, as to why the prosecuting attorney charged Ulmer with peace disturbance and why it later dismissed the charge. 30 We agree with the district court's exclusion of Charles Montgomery's testimony, however. According to Ulmer, Charles Montgomery was subject to the same treatment by the Corporation that Ulmer claims demonstrates that the Corporation adheres to a scheme to avoid civil liability for illegal arrests. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding such testimony that would inevitably compel the court to explore the collateral issue of the circumstances surrounding Montgomery's arrest. See Crimm v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 750 F.2d 703, 708 (8th Cir.1984). 31 We cannot say that the testimony Ulmer was able to solicit from Putnam concerning the absence of probable cause gave Ulmer an adequate opportunity to rebut the prima facie case of probable cause which may have been established by Judge Eberwine's finding. This testimony, interspersed with objections, established only that Putnam had not seen Ulmer commit an offense, that Putnam had arrested Ulmer because he had suspicions about Ulmer's behavior, that Terry Boal wrote the final apprehension report, and that this report contained descriptions of events Putnam told Boal had not occurred. 32 Thus, a review of the record reveals that the district court's exclusion of nearly all evidence of the circumstances underlying Ulmer's arrest and prosecution prevented Ulmer from establishing fully all elements of his claim. In removing evidence relevant to a determination of the absence of probable cause from the jury, the district court also prevented the jury from determining the presence of malice. Where want of probable cause is shown, malice may be inferred by the jury. Hoene, 487 S.W.2d at 483; Stubbs v. Mulholland, 168 Mo. 47, 67 S.W. 650, 658 (1902). Thus, the jury could not review the evidence necessary for it to determine the existence of a want of probable cause and malice, two essential elements of a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. Such exclusion was clearly erroneous. 2