Seamster v. Rumph
Decision Date | 09 April 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-140,84-140 |
Citation | 698 P.2d 103 |
Parties | Steven SEAMSTER, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Robin K. RUMPH, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Les Bowron, Casper, for appellant.
Lawrence A. Yonkee of Redle, Yonkee & Arney, Sheridan, for appellee.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
This appeal is from a summary judgment granted in a suit for malicious prosecution. We affirm.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal. " Did the district court err in concluding that the findings of probable cause in the prior criminal action left no genuine issue of material fact to be decided in the civil action, with regard to the probable cause question?
All three issues concern probable cause, are interrelated, and therefore will be combined for discussion.
Appellee and a girl friend met appellant in a bar in Gillette on February 28, 1983. When the bar closed, appellant and the two women drove to a restaurant where they had breakfast. Appellant and appellee then left together in appellee's car. Appellee drove the car behind the restaurant and parked. A police car passed by and parked some distance away. The police officers testified that they noticed nothing suspicious. Appellant and appellee engaged in sexual intercourse. Appellant contends that the act was consensual; appellee contends that it was rape.
Following the sexual encounter, appellee, driving her car, transported appellant back to his motel, then went to her sister's house where, upon entering, she was incoherent and crying. The police were called. Appellant was arrested and charged with rape. He was bound over for trial at a preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace. At the conclusion of the State's case in the jury trial, the defense motion for judgment of acquittal was denied. Defendant did not testify nor put on a case. The jury, after deliberating approximately nine hours, returned a verdict of acquittal. Appellant subsequently filed this suit for malicious prosecution against appellee. Appellee counterclaimed seeking damages for the alleged rape. The counterclaim was later dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
Upon review of a summary judgment by the supreme court,
Reno Livestock Corporation v. Sun Oil Company (Delaware), Wyo., 638 P.2d 147, 150-151 (1981).
Appellant contends that summary judgment was not appropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning probable cause and that the judge erred in deciding there was probable cause for bringing the criminal action charging appellant with rape as a matter of law. The necessary elements of an action for malicious prosecution are:
" '(6) The suffering of injury or damage as a result of the action complained of.' " Cates v. Eddy, Wyo., 669 P.2d 912, 917 (1983) (quoting Consumers Filling Station Company v. Durante, 79 Wyo. 237, 333 P.2d 691 (1958)).
The plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must satisfy a heavy burden in establishing a prima facie case, it being stated that
"The competing policy considerations are nicely balanced; and requiring malice and lack of probable cause as necessary elements to an action for malicious prosecution affords adequate protection to the first policy and restriction upon the second." Cates v. Eddy, supra at 917-918.
Summary judgment was granted appellee, the trial court holding that the element "want of probable cause" was lacking as a matter of law. Lack of probable cause is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of a suit for malicious prosecution. 52 Am.Jur.2d Malicious Prosecution § 50. The existence of probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty of the crime charged provides a complete defense. Consumers Filling Station Company v. Durante, supra. The fact that the accused is bound over at a preliminary hearing by a neutral and detached magistrate is prima facie evidence of probable cause; however it is not conclusive but can be overcome by evidence that the action was obtained by false testimony, fraud or other improper means. Carter v. Davison, Wyo., 359 P.2d 990 (1961); Penton v. Canning, 57 Wyo. 390, 118 P.2d 1002 (1941). Probable cause cannot be determined with preciseness. It exists if the proof is sufficient to show probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by the accused. Kimberly v. City of Green River, Wyo., 663 P.2d 871 (1983). Malice is a question for the jury; but, probable cause is a matter of law to be decided by the court. Consumers Filling Station Company v. Durante, supra; Huber v. Thomas, 45 Wyo. 440, 19 P.2d 1042 (1933).
"And whatever the rule may be elsewhere, it is the law in Wyoming that the binding over of the accused by an examining magistrate amounts to prima facie establishment of probable cause; that in a civil suit for malicious prosecution based upon the filing of the criminal complaint such prima facie evidence of probable cause can be overcome only by appropriate allegation and proof that the action of the magistrate was procured by false testimony, fraud, or other improper means on the part of defendant; and that in the absence of such allegation and proof, the action for malicious prosecution cannot be maintained, even though as here it be alleged in general terms that the criminal complaint was filed maliciously and without probable cause." Leggett v. Montgomery Ward and Company, 178 F.2d 436, 438 (10th Cir.1949). See also, Penton v. Canning, supra.
Appellant stated in his complaint that appellee had acted throughout the entire proceeding "falsely, maliciously, and without probable cause." 1 Appellant countered the motion for summary judgment with his own affidavit, stating:
Appellant's contention, stripped of verbiage and legalese, is that probable cause was not present because he was acquitted by a jury at trial.
Appellant's acquittal at trial, however, meant only that the jury was not convinced that he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The acquittal did not establish the lack...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Toltec Watershed Imp. Dist. v. Johnston
...caused or procured' by the defendant is fair. It will not be destructive of either of the stated policies." See also, Seamster v. Rumph, Wyo., 698 P.2d 103 (1985), wherein we sustained a summary judgment granted in favor of a defendant for malicious prosecution finding the plaintiff had not......
-
Stauffer Chemical Co. v. Curry
...is required. "Categorical assertions of ultimate facts without supporting evidence cannot defeat summary judgment." Seamster v. Rumph, 698 P.2d 103, 106 (Wyo.1985). See also Keller v. Anderson, 554 P.2d 1253 (Wyo.1976). Any evidence presented to rebut a sound prima facie case that justifies......
-
Bear Peak Res., LLC v. Peak Powder River Res., LLC
..., 795 P.2d 1204, 1208 (Wyo. 1990) and Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce , 748 P.2d 704, 710 (Wyo. 1987) ); Seamster v. Rumph , 698 P.2d 103, 106 (Wyo. 1985). Any evidence relied upon to "sustain or defeat a motion for summary judgment must be such as would be admissible at trial and......
-
Koontz v. Town of Superior
...facts without supporting evidence cannot defeat summary judgment. Greenwood v. Wierdsma, Wyo., 741 P.2d 1079 (1987); Seamster v. Rumph, Wyo., 698 P.2d 103 (1985). Appellants also rely on an affidavit of their predecessor in interest, John Kovach, who stated that "if the Town of Superior had......