Molen v. Christian
| Decision Date | 24 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 43755 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Michael Scott MOLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald D. CHRISTIAN, Defendant-Respondent. |
Dartanyon Burrows, Payette, attorney for appellant.
Points Law, PLLC, Boise, attorneys for respondent. Michelle R. Points argued.
Appellant, Michael Scott Molen ("Molen"), appeals the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his legal malpractice action. The malpractice action stems from Respondent, Ronald Christian's ("Christian"), representation of Molen in a criminal case. The crux of this appeal is whether the statute of limitations on Molen's malpractice cause of action accrued upon Molen's initial criminal conviction or when Molen was later exonerated.
On September 19, 2005, Molen was charged with lewd conduct with a minor child, S.Z. Molen pleaded not guilty at his arraignment. On the morning of trial, Christian arrived at the courthouse under the influence of alcohol. His blood alcohol content was measured at .329 and .344. The trial was vacated. An amended information was filed on May 11, 2007, and the case proceeded to jury trial on June 18, 2007.
At trial, S.Z. testified as to Molen's sexual contact with her during the summers of 2004 and 2005. Alisa Ortega, a pediatric nurse practitioner employed by St. Luke's Regional Medical Center CARES1 unit, testified that her examination of S.Z. was consistent with the sexual abuse disclosed by S.Z. On cross-examination, Nurse Ortega disclosed for the first time that there were photographs of a colposcopic genital examination of S.Z. that had not been previously provided to either the State or the defense. Doctor Edward Robert Friedlander was the defense's medical expert. Consulting on sex abuse cases was not a major part of his practice. He did not see the photographs disclosed by Nurse Ortega until about 90 minutes before he testified. He testified that the photographs from the colposcopic genital examination did not support a finding of sexual abuse.
On June 22, 2007, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Molen moved for a new trial arguing that the disclosure of the photographs of the colposcopic examination was unfair. The district court denied Molen's motion. On June 4, 2008, Molen was sentenced to twenty years consisting of eight years fixed and twelve years indeterminate. Molen appealed his conviction, but the conviction was affirmed by the Idaho Court of Appeals.
On May 23, 2011, Molen filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief asserting that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective and that prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial. On January 23, 2012, the State filed a motion for summary dismissal of the amended petition. On April 1, 2013, Molen, through court appointed counsel, filed a second amended petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
On December 26, 2013, Molen and the State filed a statement of stipulated reasons to resolve the post-conviction case. Therein, the parties agreed that post-conviction relief was warranted. In a chambers conference with counsel, the district court advised that it would not grant the stipulated resolution; however, it scheduled an evidentiary hearing to be held on April 28 and 29, 2014. Around April 7, 2014, at a status conference, counsel disclosed that they had recently learned of an additional CARES interview of S.Z., which would require granting postconviction relief. According to counsel, S.Z. made statements to Nurse Ortega that contradicted S.Z.’s previous statements. Counsel asserted that those statements were subject to Brady v. Maryland , even if unknown to the State, because of the role the CARES unit has in criminal investigations of child sexual abuse.
373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ( that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession).
On April 23, 2014, Molen and the State filed a joint stipulation of facts and points of authority related to the Brady material and a joint motion for summary judgment in favor of Molen. The parties jointly stipulated that Molen was entitled to post-conviction relief due to the contents of the newly discovered CARES interview.
On June 17, 2014, the district court granted the petition for post-conviction relief, but denied the stipulated motion for summary judgment.2 The district court's grant of postconviction relief was premised on the conclusion that Molen's trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness in: (1) failing to consult with and/or retain an expert in pediatric sexual abuse; (2) failing to discover the existence of the colposcopic photographs prior to trial; and (3) failing to request either a continuance of the trial or a mistrial so that the new evidence could be reviewed by an expert in pediatric sexual abuse. The district court vacated the judgment of conviction entered on January 7, 2008, granted Molen a new trial, and ordered the Idaho Department of Corrections to release Molen from custody. In a hearing on July 10, 2014, the district court granted the State's motion to dismiss the case.
On February 17, 2015, Molen filed suit against Christian asserting legal malpractice and breach of contract arising from the criminal lawsuit in which Christian represented Molen. On March 10, 2015, Christian filed a motion to dismiss wherein he argued that Molen's cause of action was barred by the two year statute of limitations. Molen filed responsive briefing on April 2, 2015. Therein, he argued that his claims were not barred by the statute of limitations because his cause of action against Christian did not accrue until June 17, 2014, when he was granted post-conviction relief. The district court denied Christian's motion to dismiss because there were questions of fact as to when there was objective proof of damages. On August 7, 2015, Christian filed a motion for summary judgment, which again asserted that Molen's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
On October 23, 2015, the district court granted Christian's motion for summary judgment. In its memorandum decision and order granting summary judgment, the district court analyzed two issues: (1) when the cause of action for the criminal legal malpractice claim accrued; and (2) whether actual innocence is an element of a criminal legal malpractice claim. The district court expressed concern regarding the fact that Idaho does not have substantive caselaw discussing either issue.
After introducing the basic elements of a malpractice action, the district court noted that the parties were in agreement regarding the facts. The parties disagreed, however, as to how the facts applied under the law. The district court indicated that it was inclined to adopt the exoneration rule3 because it aligned with Idaho's public policy based on civil malpractice cases. Ultimately, though, the district court refrained from doing so, noting that such a decision "must come through the Idaho Supreme Court." The district court felt "constrained to conclude" that Molen's cause of action against Christian accrued in 2007, at the time the actions constituting malpractice occurred. Specifically, the district court held that Christian's conduct related to Molen's criminal trial was "sufficiently bad" that regardless of whether Molen was convicted or not, there was an "objectively ascertainable occurrence of some damage" and related causation in 2007. The district court noted that it did not find the result particularly equitable because it "seems unfair to deny [Molen] his right to pursue and prove damages against [Christian]."
As to the second issue—whether actual innocence is an element of a legal malpractice claim arising from a criminal conviction—the district court concluded that it would only be an issue if this Court adopts the exoneration rule.
1. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Christian.
2. Whether actual innocence is an element of a malpractice action arising from a criminal conviction.
3. Whether Christian is entitled to attorney's fees on appeal.
On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, we review that decision de novo but apply the same standard used by the district court in ruling on the motion. As a general rule, this Court will affirm the judgment if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. When making its determination, the Court construes all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Parks v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois , 160 Idaho 556, 560–61, 376 P.3d 760, 764–65 (2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The time when a cause of action accrues may be a question of law or a question of fact, depending upon whether any disputed issues of material fact exist. Where there is no dispute over any issue of material fact regarding when the cause of action accrues, the question is one of law for determination by the court.
Nerco Minerals Co. v. Morrison Knudsen Corp. , 140 Idaho 144, 148, 90 P.3d 894, 898 (2004). (internal quotations and citations omitted).
We hold that the statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action does not begin to run until the plaintiff has been exonerated of the underlying criminal conviction. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's summary judgment order.
Idaho Code section 5–219(4) provides that a two year statute of limitations applies to actions to recover damages for professional malpractice. I.C. § 5–219(4). Further, the statute provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial