388 P.3d 591
Idaho2017Background
- Molen was tried and convicted in 2007 for lewd conduct with a minor after his trial counsel, Christian, arrived intoxicated the morning of trial and critical colposcopic photographs were disclosed late; Molen was sentenced in 2008 and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Molen pursued post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance; in 2014 the parties stipulated that newly discovered CARES interview material warranted relief, the district court granted post-conviction relief, vacated the conviction, and Molen was released; the State later dismissed the criminal case.
- In February 2015 Molen sued Christian for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Christian moved to dismiss/for summary judgment asserting the two-year malpractice statute of limitations had expired (claiming accrual in 2007).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Christian, reasoning the malpractice claim accrued at the time of the allegedly negligent acts (2007) and noting uncertainty whether Idaho recognizes an exoneration rule or requires proof of actual innocence.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the malpractice statute of limitations accrues at the time of the attorney’s act or upon exoneration, and whether actual innocence is an element of criminal legal malpractice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a criminal malpractice cause of action accrue? | Molen: accrual is delayed until exoneration/post-conviction relief (2014). | Christian: accrual occurred when the attorney’s acts/omissions happened (2007). | Accrual is delayed until the client is exonerated; statute begins after successful direct or collateral relief. |
| Is actual innocence an element of criminal malpractice? | Molen: actual innocence should not be required. | Christian: plaintiff must prove actual innocence to recover. | Actual innocence is not an element of a criminal malpractice claim. |
| Applicability of completed-tort accrual doctrine to criminal malpractice | Molen: completed-tort/"objective damage" accrual should await outcome of criminal case. | Christian: completed-tort occurs when negligent act causes ascertainable damage regardless of conviction outcome. | Court applies completed-tort rationale to hold accrual waits for exoneration to avoid protective suits. |
| Is Christian entitled to appellate attorney’s fees? | N/A (Molen sought costs). | Christian sought fees as prevailing party. | Denied—Christian is not the prevailing party on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 160 Idaho 556, 376 P.3d 760 (Idaho 2016) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Nerco Minerals Co. v. Morrison Knudsen Corp., 140 Idaho 144, 90 P.3d 894 (Idaho 2004) (accrual may be question of law or fact)
- Minnick v. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP, 157 Idaho 863, 341 P.3d 580 (Idaho 2015) (completed-tort theory: accrual when first objectively ascertainable damage occurs)
- City of McCall v. Buxton, 146 Idaho 656, 201 P.3d 629 (Idaho 2009) (malpractice accrual may depend on outcome of underlying litigation; discouraging protective suits)
- Lamb v. Manweiler, 129 Idaho 269, 923 P.2d 976 (Idaho 1996) (criminal-malpractice background; discussed actual innocence in dicta)
- Davis v. Moran, 112 Idaho 703, 735 P.2d 1014 (Idaho 1987) (avoiding absurd results in accrual rules)