Jordan v. Deese
Thomas P. JORDAN, Appellant v. L. Prank DEESE and Chemphar, Inc., Respondents
Opinion
Finney, Justice:
Appellant contends the trial erred in granting respondents summary judgment in this malicious prosecution action. We affirm.
Appellant was charged with making harassing phone calls to respondent Deese in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430 (Supp. 1993). Appellant applied for and, with respondents’ consent, was accepted into a Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) Program.
1
Appellant was required to pay fees, perform community service, and attend meetings and counseling sessions as part of PTI. Appellant successfully completed the program,’ and the criminal charges were dismissed. He then brought this malicious prosecution action.
There are six elements which must be proven in a malicious prosecution action:
*262 (1) institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either civil or criminal;
(2) by, or at the instance of, the defendants;
(3) termination of such proceedings in plaintiffs favor;
(4) malice in instituting the proceedings;
(5) lack of probable cause; and (6) resulting injury or damage.
Gaar v. North Myrtle Beach Realty Co., 287 S.C. 525 , 339 S.E. (2d) 887 (Ct. App. 1986).
Respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground dismissal of criminal charges as the result of appellant’s voluntary entry into the PTI Program was not, as a matter of law, a termination of the underlying action in his favor within the meaning of the third element. The trial judge granted the motion and this appeal follows.
We hold that dismissal of criminal charges as the result of the accused’s voluntary entry into, and successful completion of, a PTI Program is not, as a matter of law, a termination of the action in his favor.
Cf, Jennings v. Clearwater Mfg. Co., 171 S.C. 498 , 172 S.E. 870 (1934) (voluntary settlement of underlying criminal charge will not support malicious prosecution action). Accordingly, the circuit court’s order is Affirmed.
Chandler, C.J., Toal and Waller, JJ., and Curtis G. Shaw, Acting Associate Justice, concur.
1
See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-22-10 through -170 (1985 and Supp. 1993).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(malicious prosecution action lies when judicial proceedings are instituted by defendants which end in plaintiff’s favor, such institution being motivated by malice and lacking probable cause)
-
(a claim of malicious prosecution under South Carolina law requires a plaintiff to demonstrate, among other things, “lack of probable cause”)
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Zimbelman v. Savage
- Couram v. SC Department of Social Services
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
- Mohr v. Margolis, Ainsworth & Kinlaw Consulting, Inc.
- Town of Duncan v. State Budget & Control Board, Division of Insurance Services
- Nicholas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.