Court Opinion

ID: 9557750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:56:51.993144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:34.506099
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants-respondents in an action for malicious prosecution brought by plaintiff-appellant Gary A. Rowles against defendants-respondents Country Kitchen International, Inc., David Cormican and Rodney L. Bergeron.
Rowles appeals on the sole basis that there exist unresolved and controverted issues of material fact which made erroneous the issuance of summary judgment. We disagree and affirm.
The established facts indicate that Rowles and his brother went to the Country Kitchen establishment in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, at approximately 12:00 midnight, June 28, 1975. They had ordered and been served coffee and were preparing to order food when Cormican and Bergeron, employees of Country Kitchen, approached them and demanded to know what they were smoking. A conversation ensued regarding what the Rowles brothers were smoking at which the Rowleses evidently took offense and left without either drinking or paying for their coffee. In the parking lot Cormican and Bergeron attempted to prevent the Rowleses from leaving. Gary Rowles drove his vehicle out of the parking lot with Cormican lying on his stomach on the hood of the vehicle. Rowles proceeded onto a four-lane highway and was driving at 20-25 miles per hour when Cormican jumped off, sustaining injuries for which he was later hospitalized. Bergeron was also allegedly injured.
Cormican and Bergeron contacted the police department and a police investigation ensued during which Rowles was interviewed to “get his side of the story.” The injuries to Cormican and Bergeron were substantiated. Cormican and Bergeron were interviewed at the office of the prosecuting attorney, following which a standard criminal complaint was prepared by that office charging Rowles with assault with a deadly weapon. Rowles was arrested, held in custody briefly and released on bond. A preliminary hearing was held at which witnesses for both the prosecution and defendant testified. The magistrate judge found “probable cause to believe that the offense alleged was committed and the defendant is guilty thereof.” Subsequently, the office of the prosecuting attorney filed an information charging assault with a deadly weapon. Approximately two months later, the office of the prosecuting attorney moved to dismiss the criminal action “upon the grounds that the State cannot meet their burden of proof at time of trial.”
All of the above facts are essentially uncontroverted. However, appellant Rowles argues that his bare allegation that Cormican and Bergeron misstated the facts to the office of the prosecuting attorney creates an issue of material fact to be resolved at trial. In support of defendants-respondents’ motion for a summary judgment an affidavit was obtained from the prosecuting attorney indicating that Cormican and Bergeron had made a full and fair disclosure of the facts to him. That affidavit was uncontradicted at the time of summary judgment. Rowles further asserts that the alleged misstatement is an unresolved issue of material fact, /. e., how Cormican came to be on the hood of the car — was he thrown on the hood after being struck by the car or did he voluntarily jump on the hood in an attempt'to prevent Rowles from driving away?
The requisites for a successful proof of malicious prosecution are defined in Howard v. Felton, 85 Idaho 286, 379 P.2d 414 (1963). As to the requirement of termination of the criminal prosecution in favor of *261the accused, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 653(b) (1977). As to abandonment of criminal proceedings by a public prosecutor not constituting necessary proof of lack of probable cause, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 665(2) (1977). See also Clark v. Alloway, 67 Idaho 32, 170 P.2d 425 (1946); Fowler v. Ruebelmann, 65 Idaho 231, 142 P.2d 594 (1943); Annot., 59 A.L.R.2d 1413 (1958); Annot., 5 A.L.R. 1688 (1920).
We rest our decision in this cause on the asserted defense of defendants-respondents, i. e., advice of counsel. Here, respondents Cormican and Bergeron reported the affair to the police. An investigation was made by the police, and there is no assertion that such investigation was not objective or fair. Cormican and Bergeron were interviewed by the office of the prosecuting attorney, which thereafter prepared a formal criminal complaint and either advised or requested that it be signed. At that time the judgment of Cormican and Bergeron was superseded by that of the prosecutor. See generally Annot., 28 A.L. R.2d 646 (1953). To assert the defense of advice of counsel in a malicious prosecution action there must be full and fair disclosure. Howard v. Felton, 85 Idaho at 291, 379 P.2d 414; Allen v. Moyle, 84 Idaho 18, 367 P.2d 579 (1961); Thomas v. Hinton, 76 Idaho 337, 281 P.2d 1050 (1955); Lowther v. Metzker, 69 Idaho 115, 203 P.2d 604 (1949); Donaldson v. Miller, 58 Idaho 295, 72 P.2d 853 (1937); Douglas v. Kenney, 40 Idaho 412, 233 P. 874 (1925); Annot., 10 A.L.R.2d 1215 (1950). For a recent statement of this rule, see Dawson v. Mead, 98 Idaho 1, 557 P.2d 595 (1976). In the instant case the uncontroverted affidavit of the deputy prosecuting attorney sets forth that prior to the preparation of the criminal complaint an investigation was made by the office of the prosecuting attorney with assistance of three police officers; that prior to the filing of the complaint, Cormican and Bergeron were interviewed by the office of the prosecuting attorney and were again interviewed prior to the preliminary hearing; and that “the criminal complaint instituting the prosecution was prepared and filed upon the advice of our office.” The affidavit further sets forth that to his knowledge Cormican and Bergeron gave a full and fair statement of the facts and that the prosecuting attorney’s office was not contacted by anyone from Country Kitchen International, Inc., other than Cormican and Bergeron.
As to defendants-respondents Cormican and Bergeron, the uncontroverted facts indicate that they made full and fair disclosure to the office of the prosecuting attorney and acted upon the advice of that office. Such constitutes a defense under the above cited decisions of this Court. Summary judgment therefor was properly issued in favor of Cormican and Bergeron.
As to the corporate defendant, Country Kitchen International, Inc., there is a total absence of evidence tending in any way to connect that corporation with the prosecution of Rowles. One call was allegedly received by the office of the chief of police from some person allegedly associated with the corporate defendant, but whoever it might be and what position, if any, he held with the corporation is totally unknown. Summary judgment was properly issued in favor of the corporate defendant Country Kitchen International, Inc.
The summary judgment issued by the trial court is affirmed. Costs to respondents.
McFADDEN, DONALDSON and BAKES, JJ., concur.