Turner v. Thomas
369 N.C. 419
| N.C. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 12, 2007, Kirk Turner (plaintiff) fatally cut his wife Jennifer during an altercation; he claimed self-defense. EMS removed a bloodstained gray T‑shirt; initial SBI analysis by Special Agent Thomas reported the large stain was "consistent with a bloody hand being wiped on the shirt."
- A Davie County grand jury indicted Turner for first‑degree murder on Dec. 13, 2007; he was tried and acquitted by a jury in Aug. 2009 on self‑defense grounds.
- Plaintiff sued SBI agents Gerald R. Thomas and Duane Deaver and supervisors, alleging malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), abuse of process, false imprisonment, negligence, and § 1983 claims; many claims and defendants were dismissed below.
- Central factual allegations: after indictment, Thomas and Deaver allegedly concocted a theory that Turner staged the scene, ran repeated knife‑smear tests to match the T‑shirt stain, altered Thomas’s report to reflect the new conclusion, and otherwise manipulated evidence to preserve an appearance of probable cause.
- The trial court dismissed remaining state tort claims under Rule 12(b)(6); the Court of Appeals reinstated malicious prosecution and IIED claims against Thomas and Deaver. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint pleads lack of probable cause for malicious prosecution | Turner alleges agents manufactured evidence and manipulated reports so there was never probable cause to indict or to continue prosecution | Defendants argue grand jury indictment was prima facie evidence of probable cause and facts known to investigators at indictment supported prosecution | Court: dismissal proper — indictment established prima facie probable cause based on facts before grand jury, so malicious prosecution claim fails as pleaded |
| Whether plaintiff may plead a "continuation" theory of malicious prosecution (post‑indictment loss of probable cause) | Turner (and concurring/dissenting justices) contend continuation doctrine can support liability when defendants continue prosecution after probable cause evaporates | Defendants did not concede that theory; majority declines to decide doctrinal adoption because facts do not invoke it | Court: did not decide continuation theory; noted it could be considered in other circumstances but not presented here |
| Whether complaint states IIED claim against Thomas and Deaver | Turner alleges extreme, outrageous conduct: deliberate fabrication/manipulation of tests and reports intended to wrongfully convict him, causing diagnosable severe emotional harm | Defendants had argued investigation was competent and indictment/independent evidence showed probable cause | Court: IIED allegations, read in plaintiff’s favor, sufficiently plead outrageous conduct, intent/reckless indifference, and severe emotional distress to survive Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Pleading standard at Rule 12(b)(6) for these torts | Turner relies on notice pleading; factual allegations supply requisite notice of wrongdoing and resulting harm | Defendants rely on legal effect of indictment and ask court to treat grand jury determination as dispositive of probable cause at pleading stage | Court: accepts notice pleading but holds indictment creates prima facie probable cause here; IIED survives; malicious prosecution fails as pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. Duke Univ., 337 N.C. 742 (1994) (defines probable cause in malicious prosecution context)
- Cook v. Lanier, 267 N.C. 166 (1966) (malicious prosecution elements and probable cause standard)
- Stanford v. Grocery Co., 143 N.C. 419 (1906) (grand jury finding prima facie establishes probable cause)
- Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437 (1981) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Newberne v. Dep’t of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 359 N.C. 782 (2005) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review of pleadings)