825 S.E.2d 363
W. Va.2019Background
- Goodwin was arrested after a 2015 campus sexual assault investigation; victim described an assailant 5'8"–5'10" wearing a beanie and winter jacket, while Goodwin is 6'3" and wore a black hooded shirt.
- Goodwin alleges police falsified the victim's description, conducted a suggestive photo ID, and suppressed an alibi from restaurant owner Lisa Olney who said Goodwin was at her establishment during the assault.
- Goodwin was indicted on felony sexual-assault charges, detained about six months, and later the State moved to dismiss the indictment "without prejudice" in Sept. 2016 because DNA results were unavailable and with the victim’s agreement.
- Goodwin sued the City of Shepherdstown and Shepherd University for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging procurement, lack of probable cause, malice, and suppression of exculpatory evidence.
- The circuit court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c), finding (1) the dismissal without prejudice did not constitute a favorable termination; (2) the officers did not procure or control the prosecution given magistrate, preliminary hearing, and grand jury probable-cause findings; (3) alleged suppression did not establish malice or satisfy Brady-based duties to the defense; and (4) claims were barred by qualified immunity.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the dismissals; Justice Workman dissented, arguing the pleadings sufficed to survive dismissal and that factual inquiry into abandonment, procurement, false evidence, and outrageous conduct should proceed to discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal "without prejudice" satisfied malicious-prosecution element of favorable termination | Goodwin: dismissal reflected abandonment and thus a favorable termination | Defendants: dismissal was procedural, left refiling possible, not a favorable termination | Court: dismissal without prejudice for unavailable DNA was not a favorable termination; element not met |
| Whether police "procured" or controlled the prosecution | Goodwin: officers falsified descriptions, engineered ID, and suppressed alibi, thus procuring prosecution | Defendants: prosecution was controlled by magistrate, preliminary hearing, and prosecutor; officers did not assert control | Court: pleadings insufficient to show officers procured or controlled prosecution |
| Whether probable cause was lacking because of alleged police misconduct | Goodwin: prior probable-cause findings were tainted by fabricated evidence and suppression | Defendants: arrest warrant, preliminary hearing, and grand jury independently found probable cause | Court: judicially noticed probable-cause findings preceded alleged misconduct; complaint insufficient to overcome them |
| Whether suppression of alibi evidence supported intentional infliction of emotional distress and malice | Goodwin: suppression was outrageous, caused severe distress and stigma | Defendants: Brady disclosure duty is to the prosecutor; defendant could have discovered alibi by reasonable diligence; causation lacking | Court: allegations failed to show the officers' conduct was sufficiently outrageous or that nondisclosure caused his continued incarceration; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Radochio v. Katzen, 92 W. Va. 340, 114 S.E. 746 (W. Va. 1922) (elements required for malicious prosecution action)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Higginbotham, 228 W. Va. 522, 721 S.E.2d 541 (W. Va. 2011) (malicious-prosecution principles; procurement requires control)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (malicious-prosecution favorable-termination principle)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Owens v. Baltimore City State's Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2014) (favorable-termination and Brady-related disclosure issues)
- Travis v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 202 W. Va. 369, 504 S.E.2d 419 (W. Va. 1998) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- State v. Youngblood, 221 W. Va. 20, 650 S.E.2d 119 (W. Va. 2007) (imputation of police knowledge to prosecutor; standard for suppression under Brady)