Mark and Rhonda Lesher v. Shannon and Gerald Coyel and Val Varley
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6508
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Leshers sued Shannon Coyel, Gerald Coyel, and Val Varley after their criminal acquittal for aggravated sexual assault.
- Criminal charges were initiated by Varley; indictments later dismissed and refiled leading to trial in Collin County.
- Shannon testified at trial; Leshers asserted she lacked probable cause and acted with malice in initiating the prosecution.
- Leshers amended to include Gerald and Varley for 1983 and 1985 civil rights claims; the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted Varley’s summary judgment on absolute immunity; Shannon and Gerald also granted summary judgment; motion to compel documents denied.
- Appeal filed; Court affirms trial court’s judgments and addresses preservation of the document-compel issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution: probable cause and malice | Lesher asserts Shannon lacked probable cause and acted with malice. | Shannon argues absolute proximity to grand jury and trial witness functions; presumes probable cause; no malice shown. | Shannon summary judgment upheld; no genuine malice shown. |
| Section 1983/1985 claims against Shannon | Lesher contends facts show deprivation of rights and lack of immunity obstacles. | Shannon asserts absolute immunity for grand jury/trial testimony and lack of actionable constitutional violation. | Summary judgment affirmed on 1983/1985 claims; Rehberg immunity applied; challenges not fully pursued. |
| Absolute immunity for Varley | Lesher argues Varley acted without jurisdiction and needs not be immune. | Varley entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions, including grand jury presentation. | Varley summary judgment affirmed; absolute immunity bars claims. |
| Motion to compel documents | Lesher seeks production of notes and statements; argues privilege misapplied. | Coyels assert privilege/work-product; documents reviewed in camera; no compelled production. | Denial of motion to compel not reviewable due to lack of preserved evidence; complaint preserved insufficiently. |
| Summary judgment as to Gerald Coyel | Lesher claims liability under 1983/1985 should survive no-evidence grounds. | Gerald seeks dismissal on traditional and no-evidence grounds; no evidence of state action or class-based discrimination. | Summary judgment upheld for Gerald on no-evidence grounds; traditional grounds not challenged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (prosecutorial absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court 1997) (function-based immunity; decides immunity by function, not actor)
- Suberu v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (presumption of probable cause; burden shifts to prove lack of probable cause)
- Rico v. L-3 Commc’ns Corp., 420 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (malicious prosecution elements; malice and causation considerations)
- Forbes v. Lanzl, 9 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (considerations of malice and disclosure of information to prosecutors)
- Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. 1997) (evidence relevant to malice and causation rather than defeating probable cause)
- Morrison v. City of Baton Rouge, 761 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1985) (grand jury presentation within prosecutorial function)