Candace "Andi" W. Elliott
Background
- Elliott was charged with trespass after Young called police claiming she walked on his property and took photos; deputies recorded Young and collected photos and witness statements.
- A bench trial (five days over 16 months) resulted in acquittal because the court found the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Elliott herself had trespassed outside the public right-of-way.
- Elliott then sued Young for malicious prosecution seeking about $24,674; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the district court granted judgment for Young.
- Central dispute on appeal was whether there was probable cause to commence the trespass prosecution and whether Young’s reliance on the prosecutor’s advice insulated him from liability.
- District court found (and appellate court agreed) that probable cause existed based on Young’s statements, photos showing opportunity to commit the offense, the deputy’s probable cause affidavit, and the prosecutor’s independent review; advice-of-counsel was a complete defense if the prosecutor had full knowledge of the facts.
- Court also denied Elliott’s recusal motion and awarded Young appellate attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(1) and alternatively under standards for frivolous appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Elliott's Argument | Young's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was lack of probable cause for the trespass charge | Photos and deed show Elliott was on public roadway; Young negligently failed to verify boundary; prosecutor was a family friend | Young had statements, photos showing opportunity and provided full facts to prosecutor; prosecutor’s charging decision establishes probable cause | No genuine issue: probable cause existed; summary judgment for Young affirmed |
| Whether Young’s alleged failure to disclose or inconsistent statements defeat advice-of-counsel defense | Young contradicted prior statements and omitted facts, so prosecutor advice was not from an independent, fully informed source | Young provided his statements and affidavit; prosecutor independently reviewed facts and met independence requirement | Advice-of-counsel defense applies; even mistaken legal view by prosecutor does not negate defense when given in good faith |
| Whether the district judge should have been recused | Prior adverse rulings and interactions with same prosecutor showed bias | Judge had no personal knowledge or bias regarding parties; denial was within discretion | Denial of recusal not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Young is entitled to attorney fees on appeal | (Elliott) — appeal should reverse | Young sought fees under § 12-120(1) and § 12-121/I.A.R. 41 as prevailing party and for frivolous appeal | Young entitled to fees under § 12-120(1); also awarded fees on appeal under frivolous-appeal standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Conchemco, Inc., 111 Idaho 851, 727 P.2d 1279 (Ct. App. 1986) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Herrold v. Idaho State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 112 Idaho 410, 732 P.2d 379 (Ct. App. 1987) (elements of malicious prosecution action)
- Howard v. Felton, 85 Idaho 286, 379 P.2d 414 (1963) (advice of counsel is equivalent to probable cause)
- Thomas v. Hinton, 76 Idaho 337, 281 P.2d 1050 (1955) (advice of counsel defense applies if prosecutor had full and fair knowledge and advice was relied on in good faith)
- Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. No. 25, 149 Idaho 679, 239 P.3d 784 (2010) (movant’s burden on summary judgment to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Frantz v. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, 161 Idaho 60, 383 P.3d 1230 (2016) (standards for awarding appellate attorney fees for frivolous or unreasonable appeals)