Carpenter v. Sibley

California Supreme Court Mar 13, 1908 No. Sac. No. 1469.Published

Before: Hrnshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A complaint for malicious prosecution sufficiently rebuts the presumption of probable cause arising from a prior conviction if it alleges that the conviction was procured through fraud, perjury, or other unfair conduct by the defendants.

Issues

Whether a judgment of conviction conclusively establishes probable cause in a subsequent malicious prosecution action even if the conviction was allegedly procured by fraud or perjury.
Whether the fraud required to rebut the presumption of probable cause in a malicious prosecution action must be limited to extrinsic fraud.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“if the declaration or complaint shows a conviction of the plaintiff, yet if it be averred that the conviction was procured by fraud, perjury or subornation of perjury, or other unfair conduct on the part of the defendant, the presumption of-probable cause is effectually rebutted.”

“it is still a fraud which will support an action for a remedy for the private wrong thus committed.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HRNSHAW, J.

Plaintiff filed his complaint against the defendants, the district attorney and the sheriff of San Joaquin County, with others, seeking a recovery for malicious prosecution. Defendants interposed a general demurrer to-the complaint, which was overruled. Subsequently they joined issue by answering, a jury was impaneled at the-request of the plaintiff, and defendants again interposed their general demurrer in the form of objection to the introduction of any evidence because of insufficient facts alleged in the complaint. This objection was timely, since it may be interposed at any stage of the case.

(Buchman

Hatch,

139 Cal. 53, [72 Pac. 445] ;

Bell

v. Thompson, 147 Cal. 689, [82 Pac. 327] ;

Hall

Linn, 8

Colo. 264, [5 Pac. 643].) The court sustained .this objection, and, plaintiff declining to> amend, a judgment of dismissal was entered and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff charged in his complaint that the district attorney and the assistant district attorney and the sheriff and other persons maliciously and feloniously conspired and agreed to falsely charge and accuse the plaintiff of the crime of subornation- of perjury, and to convict and punish him therefor; that in pursuance of this conspiracy the conspirators unlawfully procured false evidence to be given before the grand jury of the county, by means of which false evidence they caused plaintiff to be wrongfully and unlawfully indicted for the crime of subornation of perjury; that the indictment was insufficient in form and substance and did not state a public offense; that it was presented to the superior court. Plaintiff was arraigned thereon and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently his trial was had before a jury, and “the said conspirators then and there, during the trial of said case, made use of the false and perjured evidence of thieves and perjurers, which they had corruptly and' maliciously procured by means of promises of immunity from crimes and other inducements, and offered and introduced such testimony, which they then and there knew to-be false, in evidence at said trial against plaintiff.” There-then follow allegations of intimidation whereby the jury'was.

Carpenter v. Sibley

AI Brief

Synopsis

HRNSHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief