Marshall v. Browning
310 Ga. App. 64
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 2005, Marshall, an elementary school teacher, was investigated by Roswell Detective Browning after a DFCS referral alleging child sexual misconduct by Marshall.
- Forensic interviews with A.S., J.M., and L.L. described touching and secret-keeping behavior by Marshall; A.S. initially described an incident and later recanted details.
- Browning, with district attorney involvement, sought and obtained warrants to search Marshall's residence and classroom and four arrest warrants charging three counts of child molestation and one count of sexual battery.
- Marshall was arrested; no physical evidence supporting the accusations was found at Marshall's home or computer; Marshall denied the allegations.
- DA's office partially investigated and concluded insufficient evidence for felony charges; the case was not indicted or pursued as a misdemeanor.
- Marshall sued Browning for malicious prosecution; the trial court granted summary judgment in Browning on the basis of official immunity; the issue on actual malice is dispositive of immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Browning acted with actual malice to defeat official immunity | Marshall contends Browning acted with malice and without probable cause. | Browning acted within discretionary authority and without malice; probable cause rose from the children's statements. | No actual malice; official immunity applies. |
| Whether the investigation and warrants lacked probable cause | Marshall asserts there was no probable cause to prosecute. | Browning and DA relied on interviews and investigative findings to establish probable cause. | Probable cause supported by the statements and investigation; not shown as lacking for immunity. |
| Whether uncorroborated child testimony can sustain probable cause and criminal charging | Uncorroborated statements undermine credibility and probable cause. | Uncorroborated child testimony can support a molestation conviction; credibility questions are for the trier of fact. | Uncorroborated testimony can support charges; does not negate immunity. |
| Whether Browning’s actions to pursue warrants, despite potential embarrassment and expense, show malice | Her subjective belief and calculated decisions show malice. | Decisions were discretionary, based on investigation and evidence, not malice. | No evidence of malice; actions within official immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Cobb, 258 Ga.App. 159, 573 S.E.2d 417 (2002) (threshold immunity analysis for government officials)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122, 549 S.E.2d 341 (2001) (official immunity scope and ministerial vs discretionary acts)
- Valades v. Uslu, 301 Ga. App. 885, 689 S.E.2d 338 (2009) (official immunity and malice standards)
- Reed v. DeKalb County, 264 Ga.App. 83, 589 S.E.2d 584 (2003) (discretionary acts and immunity applicability)
- Todd v. Kelly, 244 Ga.App. 404, 535 S.E.2d 540 (2000) (misguided warrants without malice not per se malicious)
- Bateast v. DeKalb County, 258 Ga.App. 131, 572 S.E.2d 756 (2002) (malice inference standard in false arrest/prosecution)