Lundberg v. Scoggins, C5-82-1410.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1983
• Docket Number: No. C5-82-1410.,C5-82-1410.
• Citation: 335 NW 2d 235
• Parties: Michael Charles LUNDBERG, Appellant, v. Dana SCOGGINS, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

335 N.W.2d 235 (1983)

Michael Charles LUNDBERG, Appellant, v. Dana SCOGGINS, Respondent.

No. C5-82-1410.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 17, 1983.

Meshbesher, Singer & Spence, Ronald I. Meshbesher, Michael C. Snyder and Patrick K. Horan, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Meagher, Geer, Markham, Anderson, Adamson, Flaskamp & Brennan, James M. Riley and James F. Roegge, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

PETERSON, Justice.

The issue presented in this case, one of first impression, is whether a complaint of negligent accusation and misidentification of a criminal suspect states a claim upon which relief can be granted. We hold that it does not, for longstanding public policy reasons encouraging witness/victim participation in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

The issue arises in the following factual context. Defendant was sexually assaulted as she was walking home from a bus stop. A man grabbed her, pushed a sharp object against her side, and ordered, "Don't scream, I've got a knife." He then raped her.

Defendant informed police that she could identify her attacker as someone she had met at a neighborhood party a week and one-half prior to the assault. Several independent witnesses confirmed the fact that defendant had met plaintiff at the party.

The Minneapolis Police Department instituted an investigation into the crime. Defendant viewed a series of six photographs, one of which was plaintiff, but she was unable to make any identification. The police subsequently asked defendant to view a live lineup at the police department. Each lineup participant was required to step forward and say, "Don't scream, I've got a knife." From this lineup, defendant identified plaintiff as the man who raped her. She gave a formal statement to the police, stating her certainty that plaintiff was the assailant.

Based upon this information, plaintiff was arrested and placed in custody. Thereafter, laboratory results of blood groupings and secretion grouping tests established that plaintiff could not have been the person who sexually assaulted defendant. The county attorney dismissed all charges.

Plaintiff then brought an action against defendant, alleging that she negligently accused and misidentified him as her attacker and demanding judgment against defendant for the harm caused him by such negligence. The trial court dismissed the complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Although the specific issue is one of first impression, our decision is controlled by a well-established body of law relating to an analogous claim of malicious prosecution. This...