Jones v. Soileau
448 So. 2d 1268 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a malicious prosecution action, a prior criminal conviction that was subsequently reversed on appeal does not conclusively establish the existence of probable cause; it is merely one piece of evidence for the court to consider in the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- Elsie Mae Jones, an elderly woman on a fixed income, entered into a credit arrangement with Calvin Soileau, a grocery store owner who was also the city marshal.
- Under their arrangement, Jones would sign blank counter checks, which Soileau called 'hold checks', for the value of her grocery purchases each month.
- Soileau agreed to hold these checks until Jones received her monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) check, at which point he would cash her SSI check, deduct the amount owed, and return the counter checks to her.
- Jones never represented that she had a bank account for the counter checks, nor did Soileau or his employees ever ask for an account number or fill one in on the checks.
- This system worked for several months until February 1980, when Jones incurred high expenses and was unable to pay her grocery bill of $315.78.
- When Jones could not pay, Soileau deposited the four 'hold checks', which were returned because Jones had no such bank account.
- Soileau sent demand notices to Jones signed in his official capacity as 'City Marshal,' and when Jones offered to pay $30 per month, he refused and demanded payment in full.
- After consulting with the district attorney's office, Soileau initiated criminal proceedings against Jones for issuing worthless checks.
Procedural Posture:
- At the urging of Calvin Soileau, an assistant district attorney filed a bill of information charging Elsie Mae Jones with four counts of issuing worthless checks in district court, the court of first instance.
- The trial judge found Jones guilty on three of the four counts.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted review of the criminal conviction and reversed it, finding the worthless check statute inapplicable to the credit transaction.
- Jones then filed a civil suit for malicious prosecution against Soileau in the trial court.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Jones, awarding her $25,000 in damages.
- Soileau, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeal, which reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the original conviction established probable cause.
- Jones, as applicant, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 prior criminal conviction, which was later reversed, conclusively establish the existence of probable cause to defeat a subsequent claim for malicious prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Dixon
No, a prior criminal conviction that is later reversed does not conclusively establish probable cause. Rather, the conviction is one factor to be considered among the totality of the circumstances when determining whether the defendant had an honest and reasonable belief in the plaintiff's guilt. Here, Soileau could not have had such a belief, as he devised the 'hold check' system knowing Jones did not have an account and intended it as a debt collection tool, not a normal check transaction. The qualified immunity for acting on the advice of counsel does not apply because Soileau did not make a full and truthful disclosure of the underlying credit arrangement to the district attorney. Malice is inferred from the absence of probable cause and Soileau's wanton and reckless use of the criminal process and his official position as city marshal to enforce a civil debt.
Dissenting - Justice Marcus
Yes, a conviction should conclusively establish probable cause. The conviction of an accused by a trial court, even if reversed by an appellate tribunal, should be considered conclusive proof of probable cause, unless the conviction was obtained by fraud, perjury, or other corrupt means. This position aligns with the majority view in other states.
Analysis:
This decision distinguishes Louisiana's fault-based tort law from the more rigid common law approach to malicious prosecution. It rejects the mechanical application of a presumption that a conviction, even if reversed, proves probable cause. Instead, the court mandates a holistic, fact-sensitive inquiry into the defendant's subjective belief and the objective reasonableness of that belief. The ruling strongly condemns the abuse of the criminal process for civil debt collection and holds individuals, particularly public officials, accountable for using their authority for private financial gain.
