Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, Inc.
387 So.2d 377 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's decision to not file an information and abandon a criminal proceeding, even for technical defects in the complaint, constitutes a 'bona fide termination' in the defendant's favor, satisfying an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim.
Facts:
- Employees of Publix Supermarket, Inc., including manager Harold Stepp, suspected that Anthony Gatto had shoplifted paperback books.
- Stepp attempted to retrieve the books, resulting in a casual touching of Gatto's hand or wrist.
- Gatto was never physically restrained and remained free to leave the supermarket at all times.
- At Gatto's own insistence, Stepp called the police.
- A police officer arrested Gatto and executed a sworn complaint, which Stepp countersigned.
- The State Attorney’s Office determined the sworn complaint contained technical defects, including citing the wrong statute.
- Based on these defects, the State Attorney's Office filed a 'no information,' formally declining to prosecute Gatto.
- Gatto received a letter from the court clerk informing him that his case had been closed.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Gatto filed suit against Publix Supermarket, Inc. and Harold Stepp in a Florida trial court.
- Gatto's complaint alleged counts of assault and battery, false arrest and imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.
- At the conclusion of Gatto's case at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and entered a directed verdict in their favor on all counts.
- Gatto, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor's filing of a 'no information' due to technical defects in a criminal complaint constitute a bona fide termination of the criminal proceeding for the purposes of a subsequent malicious prosecution lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Daniel Pearson
Yes. A prosecutor's filing of a 'no information' constitutes a bona fide termination of a criminal proceeding sufficient to support a claim for malicious prosecution. The court reasoned that the essential element of a bona fide termination is met either by an adjudication on the merits favorable to the accused or by a good faith declination to prosecute. The court found no substantive distinction between a 'nolle prosequi,' a 'declination to prosecute,' or a 'no information,' as they all represent an abandonment of the prosecution that requires new official action to recommence. The court explicitly stated, 'There are no magic words for termination.' The key is that the proceeding ends in a manner favorable to the accused and was not procured by a bargain or compromise on the accused's part. The court distinguished prior cases that required an adjudication on the merits or involved terminations bargained for by the defendant, holding that a prosecutor's unilateral decision to abandon the case for any good faith reason suffices.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'bona fide termination' element of the malicious prosecution tort in Florida, broadening its application. By holding that a prosecutor's declination to prosecute for any good faith reason, including technical defects, satisfies this element, the court lowered a potential barrier for plaintiffs. This precedent establishes that the form of the termination is less important than its substance—that the prosecution was abandoned without being procured by the accused. It solidifies the principle that a plaintiff does not need a formal acquittal or dismissal on the merits to proceed with a malicious prosecution claim, thereby impacting how future defendants assess their liability when a criminal case against an accused is dropped before trial.
