Michael Duane Dean v. Barry L. Kanode
1952233
Va. Ct. App.Dec 10, 2024Background
- Dean and Meadows, employees of the Virginia Department of Corrections, participated in subduing an inmate, Byrns, which resulted in injuries to both Byrns and Dean.
- Byrns filed an excessive force complaint, prompting an internal DOC investigation by Acosta (internal affairs) and review by Kanode (warden).
- Acosta and Kanode reported the incident and requested criminal charges against Dean and Meadows, omitting Byrns's criminal history from their report.
- The Commonwealth’s Attorney convened a grand jury, resulting in indictments for malicious wounding; Meadows’s charge was later dropped, and Dean was acquitted after trial.
- Dean and Meadows sued Acosta and Kanode for malicious prosecution in state court, arguing the charges were instituted without probable cause; the trial court dismissed their complaint on demurrer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Acosta & Kanode instituted prosecution | They requested and sought felony charges be brought | Only Commonwealth’s Attorney can institute prosecutions | No, only prosecutor can institute, not reporting DOC |
| Whether claim for malicious prosecution pleaded | Sufficient facts alleged, lacking probable cause | Complaint fails to show action was malicious or without probable cause | No, pleadings insufficient for malicious prosecution |
| Whether DOC reporting meets legal standard | Reporting was not just mandatory but discretionary act | Reporting was mandatory under statute; not basis for malicious prosecution | Statutory mandatory report is legally protected act |
| Whether testimony or report to grand jury counts | Such actions amount to instituting or cooperating | Testifying and reporting do not alone constitute instituting prosecution | Testimony/reporting do not institute prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Coward v. Wellmont Health Sys., 295 Va. 351 (complaint facts assumed true at demurrer stage)
- Lewis v. Kei, 281 Va. 715 (elements and disfavored status of malicious prosecution in Virginia)
- Reilly v. Shepherd, 273 Va. 728 (public policy rationale for caution in malicious prosecution claims)
- King v. Martin, 150 Va. 122 (reporting crime and testifying do not institute prosecution)
- In re Horan, 271 Va. 258 (prosecutorial discretion resides with Commonwealth’s Attorney)