Court Opinion

ID: 9454991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:05:58.836307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:24.569805
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I am firmly of the view that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s timely motion for a directed verdict both on the malicious prosecution count and the slander count and that the judgment should be reversed and remanded to the district court with direction to enter judgment for the defendant. This is a diversity case in which Nebraska law controls and hence little purpose would be served by setting out in full the many reasons why a reversal is required.
The authorities cited by the majority which hold that a person who has supplied information to the prosecuting authorities is not liable as an instigator, particularly where the decision of whether to prosecute is left to the prosecuting authorities” discretion, standing alone require a reversal of the malicious prosecution count.
Mrs. Wells’ complaint to the local police that plaintiff while operating defendant’s truck got out of the truck with his pants open and partly down was reported to the defendant by the police. Mrs. Wells’ statement of the incident was taken at the sheriff’s office in the presence of a deputy sheriff and Mr. Cole, the defendant’s representative. The statement was signed by Mrs. Wells, a reputable person. The truth of the written statement is not disputed. Immediately after the statement was taken, Mr. Cole, Mrs. Wells and the deputy sheriff went to the office of Mr. Ponder, the prosecuting attorney, and delivered the statement to him. In delivering the statement, Mr. Cole said, “Here it is. You can do with it what you want.” Mr. Ponder testified that neither Mr. Cole nor anyone else asked him to file a criminal complaint. There is no substantial evidence to the contrary.
The criminal complaint was signed and filed by Mr. Ponder as prosecuting attorney. It charged plaintiff with violation of § 28-920.01, R.R.S.Neb., which proscribes exposure of the person to public view in a manner adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts and carries a penalty of a fine of $500 or up to six months in jail. Section 28-920 proscribes indecent exposure of the person or the use of obscene language and carries a penalty of up to $100 or not over ninety days in jail.
It fairly appears that the question of whether to prosecute and if so the section of the statute under which the charge was to be made rested exclusively with the prosecutor. Nothing appears in the statement of evidence that the exposure was adapted to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts. While it would appear that the prosecution was unfortunate, no evidentiary basis exists for charging defendant with instigating the prosecution. The responsibility for any investigation reasonably required before launching the prosecution rested upon the law enforcement officers under the facts of this case.
With respect to the slander count, the alleged slanderous utterances are set out in the majority opinion. The evidence that the statements were made in the form stated is weak when weighed against the evidence in opposition thereto but the evidence would appear to be sufficient to raise a jury issue on the making of the alleged statements. A serious doubt exists on whether they charge a crime.
Plaintiff pleaded the statements were false and malicious. Defendant denied *951such allegations. The publication of the allegations was in connection with reports to the law enforcement officials. Such statements would appear to be at least qualifiedly privileged. Defendant in its motion raised the point that malice was not proven.
Section 25-840, R.R.S.Neb., set out in full in the majority opinion, is clear and unambiguous. By its terms it expressly applies to libel and slander actions. The last sentence clearly states, “Actual malice shall. not be inferred or presumed from publication.”
In Whitcomb v. Nebraska State Education Ass’n, 165 N.W.2d 90, 101, the court majority authoritatively interprets the statute as follows:
“Previous to the amendment in 1957 of section 25-840, R.R.S.1943, when a publication was libelous per se, malice was presumed. The presumption made a prima facie case on malice so that the burden of rebutting the presumption was on the defendant. See Hall v. Rice, 117 Neb. 813, 223 N.W. 4, 78 A.L.R. 1521. In 1957, the following was added to the statute: ‘The truth in itself and alone shall be a complete defense unless it shall be proved by the plaintiff that the publication was made with actual malice. Actual malice shall not be inferred or presumed from publication.’ This changed the law by eliminating any presumption of malice and transferring the burden to the plaintiff on that issue.”
The last sentence of the quotation clearly indicates that the court considered that the statute places the burden of proof, on the plaintiff on the malice issue.
Resort to legislative history as an aid in interpreting statutes is generally appropriate only when a statute is ambiguous. An unambiguous statute should be interpreted as written. Hanover Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 369 U.S. 672, 687, 82 S.Ct. 1080, 8 L.Ed.2d 187; United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 643, 648, 81 S.Ct. 1278, 6 L.Ed.2d 575; United States v. Martin, 8 Cir., 337 F.2d 171, 174.
There is no support in the record for a finding of actual malice. Defendant’s investigator Cole had no previous acquaintance with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not discharged by the defendant. The motion for a directed verdict on the slander count should be sustained on the asserted ground that there is no substantial evidence to support a finding of malice.
Since what has heretofore been said is dispositive of this appeal, I do not reach or express a view on the troublesome issues of prejudicial remarks by the trial court and excessive damages induced by passion and prejudice, and the overlapping of damages on the two counts.