Malicious Prosecution Claim Goes to Trial

In this suit for malicious prosecution, a grand jury finding of probable cause does not insulate a defendant who allegedly was not “truthful” in her complaints to police from liability for malicious prosecution; a finding of probable cause by a magistrate or grand jury may be pertinent or even convincing, but it is not dispositive and the Westmoreland County Circuit Court denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The issue at hand is whether the grand jury’s finding of probable cause insulates the defendant from liability as a matter of law.

The tort of malicious prosecution has four elements. The prosecution must be 1) malicious, 2) instituted by or with cooperation of the defendant, 3) without probable cause, and 4) terminated in a manner not unfavorable to plaintiff. If, taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, each element is undisputed then summary judgment would be appropriate.
Case law defines “probable cause” as knowledge of such facts and circumstances to raise the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on those facts and circumstances, that the plaintiff is guilty of the crime of which he is suspected. The finding of probable cause by a magistrate or grand jury is not dispositive; rather, it is merely pertinent evidence. Furthermore, if an individual institutes an action for an improper purpose then a finding of probable cause by a magistrate or grand jury will not insulate that individual from malicious prosecution.

Here, two of the four elements are not in dispute; there was cooperation of the defendant in instituting the action and the action was terminated in plaintiff’s favor. Case law indicates that while it is always pertinent, and perhaps even convincing, a magistrate or grand jury finding of probable cause is not always dispositive as to the probable cause element in malicious prosecution. Plaintiff’s argument centers on his allegation defendant did not truthfully report to the police investigator, and thus the finding of probable cause by the grand jury, being based at least in part on that untruthful report, does not insulate her from liability. Defendant argues she was truthful and there were additional grounds for establishing probable cause.

Because there is a genuine dispute over whether defendant was being “truthful” in her report to the police and thus whether there was sufficient factual basis to support the grand jury’s finding of probable cause, summary judgment is not appropriate.

Smits v. Musselman (Harris) No. CL 12000057-00, Aug. 30, 2013; Westmoreland County Cir.Ct.; James B. Thorsen for plaintiff; D. Hayden Fisher for defendant. VLW 013-8-092, 4 pp.