Court Opinion

ID: 9530214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:58:17.988538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:01.789527
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE REARDON, dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority. In the posture in which this case comes to us all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint are presumptively true. Following that principle I conclude that the State’s Attorney was intentionally misadvised by the president of the defendant corporation. Although unknown to the prosecutor there was a total want of probable cause for the issuance of the criminal process. I conclude that the criminal process issued only because the prosecutor was intentionally misadvised by Kilbom’s failure to disclose to him the essential facts of his dealings with the plaintiff. We know from the pleadings tíiat the criminal proceeding terminated in appellant’s favor and that appellant was injured. From these pleadings I am forced to conclude that malice motivated the complaint to the State’s Attorney and directly occasioned the issuance of the criminal process. Perhaps the prosecutor should have been more thorough in the ascertainment of the facts. In any event, his failure (if it was a failure) should not occasion the extension of his prosecutorial immunity to the defendants and thereby free them from responsibility for their malicious conduct. I do not construe these facts as prosecutorial errors and am unwilling to leave the victim without a remedy. Accordingly, I dissent.