Scott D. Lemoine Beverly P. Lemoine v. Elizabeth P. Wolfe
168 So.3d 362 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's dismissal of a criminal prosecution constitutes a bona fide termination in favor of the accused for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, unless the dismissal was the result of a compromise, misconduct by the accused, mercy, the institution of new proceedings, or the impossibility or impracticality of bringing the accused to trial.
Facts:
- In 2008, Scott Lemoine authored posts on a news website and Facebook suggesting that state district court Judge Elizabeth P. Wolfe had used her influence to benefit her daughter-in-law, Kelly Wolfe, in a legal dispute with Lemoine's friend.
- Kelly Wolfe and her sister-in-law complained to Detective Toby Aguillard that they felt harassed by Lemoine's posts.
- Judge Wolfe also contacted Detective Aguillard, stated she was upset by the posts, suggested Lemoine's conduct constituted cyberstalking, and indicated she wanted him arrested.
- In December 2009, Detective Aguillard secured an arrest warrant, and Lemoine was arrested for cyberstalking.
- Lemoine's bail was increased from $25,000 to $100,000 with a GPS tracking requirement; because no bracelets were available, he remained incarcerated.
- While Lemoine was in jail, a fellow inmate, Brian Register, falsely accused him of soliciting Judge Wolfe's murder, providing fabricated evidence to authorities.
- Lemoine was formally charged with cyberstalking and solicitation of murder.
- After handwriting experts determined the murder-solicitation evidence was fabricated by Register, a judge found no probable cause for that charge, and the District Attorney later dismissed the cyberstalking charge.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Lemoine and his wife sued Judge Elizabeth P. Wolfe in the United States District Court, asserting a state law claim for malicious prosecution.
- Judge Wolfe filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, dismissing the Lemoines' claim.
- The Lemoines (appellants) appealed the summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit panel determined that triable issues of fact existed for five of the six elements of malicious prosecution but was uncertain about Louisiana law regarding the 'bona fide termination' element.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified the question of law to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a definitive ruling.
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 the dismissal of a criminal cyberstalking prosecution pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 691 constitute a bona fide termination in the defendant's favor for the purposes of a subsequent malicious prosecution lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Weimer, Justice.
Yes, a dismissal of a criminal prosecution pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 691 generally constitutes a bona fide termination in the defendant's favor, unless the dismissal resulted from specific circumstances not indicative of innocence. The court adopts the framework of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, holding that a prosecutor's formal abandonment of a case via a nolle prosequi is a favorable termination. This presumption is rebutted only if the dismissal was due to a compromise agreement, misconduct by the accused to prevent trial, mercy, the institution of new proceedings, or the impossibility of bringing the accused to trial. The court clarified that its prior ruling in Savoie v. Rubin, which mentioned a 'conclusion on the merits,' should not be read so narrowly as to exclude all pre-trial dismissals. A nolle prosequi implies innocence, shifting the burden to the malicious prosecution defendant to prove the dismissal was for a neutral reason.
Dissenting - Hughes, J.
No, under these specific circumstances, the dismissal does not constitute a bona fide termination in the plaintiff's favor. The dissent argues that a dismissal based solely on a policy of not extraditing defendants for misdemeanor offenses is not a termination indicative of innocence. Such a dismissal is based on practical considerations rather than the merits of the case and therefore should not satisfy the 'bona fide termination' element of a malicious prosecution claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'bona fide termination' element for malicious prosecution claims in Louisiana, aligning state law with the majority rule articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It establishes that a prosecutor's voluntary dismissal of a case creates a rebuttable presumption of a favorable termination, making it easier for individuals whose criminal charges were dropped to pursue civil remedies. The ruling effectively lowers the initial barrier for malicious prosecution plaintiffs by shifting the burden to the defendant to demonstrate that the dismissal was for reasons unrelated to the merits, such as procedural or practical obstacles. This resolves conflicting interpretations from lower courts and federal 'Erie' guesses, providing a clear standard for future cases.
Unlock the full brief for Scott D. Lemoine Beverly P. Lemoine v. Elizabeth P. Wolfe