Court Opinion

ID: 9587622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:24:24.949927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:56.623959
License: Public Domain

LEESON, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that there is no genuine factual issue with regard to plaintiff s claim that defendant maliciously continued his murder prosecution. However, as much as I share the majority’s hesitance to condone a disfavored cause of action, I cannot conclude from the record on summary judgment that, as a matter of law, there is no factual issue with regard to the claim for malicious initiation of the arson prosecution.
The evidence is that the arson at plaintiffs business occurred more than 27 months before plaintiff, defendant and a third party, Chris Lange, were arrested for the murder of Lucas. No charges had been filed for the arson. While in custody, defendant was questioned by police about the murder. He was asked whether he had introduced Lange to plaintiff because plaintiff was looking for someone to murder Lucas. Defendant responded in the negative, but stated that he had introduced Lange to plaintiff on a previous occasion *203when plaintiff was looking for a “shady character” to commit arson. A few months later, the prosecutor brought an indictment that alleged, as defendant had stated, that plaintiff committed the arson at his own business.
A person initiates a prosecution if the person provides information that the person knows to be false or incomplete, and that information leads to a subsequent indictment. Rose (Betty), v. Whitbeck, 277 Or 791, 797-98, 562 P2d 188, mod 278 Or 463, 564 P2d 671 (1977); see also Restatement (Second) Torts § 653, comment g (1977). The majority appears to hold, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs statement did not cause the prosecutor to seek the indictment, because the prosecutor also presented the testimony of 16 other witnesses to the grand jury. That 16 other witnesses testified before the grand jury may be evidence that defendant’s statement did not cause the prosecutor to seek the indictment, but it is not conclusive of that fact, as a matter of law. Assuming, as we must at this stage in the proceedings, that defendant’s statement was knowingly false, and in the light of the evidence related above, I would hold that there is an issue of fact about whether defendant initiated the arson prosecution.