86 So. 3d 942
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Lochridge, a registered nurse at Pioneer, was laid off May 4, 2007 during restructuring.
- She helped retrieve items she left at Pioneer’s facility that evening, with others present.
- Grimes reported Lochridge’s entry and alleged taking Pioneer property after Lochridge left a voice message.
- The Aberdeen Police prepared a burglary affidavit based on Grimes’s statements; Lochridge turned herself in May 9, 2007.
- Indictment for burglary was returned January 18, 2008; charges were retired to file February 29, 2008 and dismissed with prejudice September 11, 2008.
- Lochridge sued Pioneer for malicious prosecution; circuit court granted summary judgment; case appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution termination requirement was met | Termination occurred via dismissal with prejudice | Dismissal without prejudice; not termination in plaintiff’s favor | Terminated in plaintiff’s favor; appellate remand |
| Whether malice was shown in initiating the prosecution | Evidence supports malice from business motives and false statements | Prosecution pursued to bring Lochridge to justice; not malicious | Genuine disputes on malice preclude summary judgment |
| Whether there was probable cause to charge Lochridge | Lack of honest belief; some items owned by Lochridge; disputed facts | Reasonable belief of burglary based on items and Grimes’s reports | Genuine factual disputes regarding probable cause exist |
| Whether the circuit court properly denied liability given disputed facts | Disputes on malice and probable cause require trial | Summary judgment appropriate where facts undisputed | Disputes material; summary judgment improper; remand warranted |
| Whether the case law requires proof of termination with prejudice | Termination with prejudice supports claim | Retirement to files or non-prejudicial dismissal not enough | Rule uncertain; issues remain for factfinder on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Joiner v. Principal Cas. Ins. Co., 684 So.2d 1242 (Miss.1996) (termination element in malicious-prosecution case)
- Nassar v. Concordia Rod & Gun Club, Inc., 682 So.2d 1035 (Miss.1996) (malice and probable cause may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- McClinton v. Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., 792 So.2d 968 (Miss.2001) (elements of malicious prosecution including malice and lack of probable cause)
- Whitfield v. Westbrook, 40 Miss.311 (Miss.1866) (lack of probable cause evidence inferable from acquittal/ discharge)
- Pugh v. Easterling, 367 So.2d 935 (Miss.1979) (prosecution termination rules for malicious-prosecution claim)