Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451 (1975)

A plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution must demonstrate the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding, and the victim’s identification and Grand Jury indictment generally establish probable cause unless the identification resulted from conspiracy and the indictment from fraud, perjury, or suppression of evidence.

Summary

Broughton sued the State of New York, alleging malicious prosecution after he was arrested and indicted for robbery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of his claim, holding that the victim’s identification of Broughton as the robber and the Grand Jury’s indictment established probable cause for his prosecution. To overcome these elements, Broughton needed to prove the identification was the result of a conspiracy and the indictment was due to fraud, perjury, or suppression of evidence. The court found that Broughton failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet this burden, particularly since the decision to present the case to the Grand Jury was made by the District Attorney, for whose actions the city is not responsible.

Facts

Plaintiff Broughton was arrested for robbery. The complaining witness identified Broughton as the robber soon after the crime. The witness identified some of the money found on Broughton as marked money from the robbery. Broughton matched the complaining witness’ description of the robber in height, weight, age and clothing. A Grand Jury indicted Broughton for the robbery. A gun was retrieved near the scene of the robbery.

Procedural History

Broughton sued the State of New York, alleging malicious prosecution. The lower court dismissed the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the victim’s identification of the plaintiff and the Grand Jury’s indictment established probable cause for the plaintiff’s prosecution, thereby precluding a claim for malicious prosecution, absent evidence of conspiracy, fraud, perjury, or suppression of evidence.

Holding

Yes, because the victim’s identification of the plaintiff as the robber and the Grand Jury’s indictment established probable cause for his prosecution, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the identification was the result of a conspiracy or that the indictment was the result of fraud, perjury, or suppression of evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the victim’s identification and the Grand Jury’s indictment are strong indicators of probable cause. The court stated, “the victim’s identification of plaintiff as the robber and the Grand Jury’s indictment established probable cause for his prosecution.” To overcome these indicators, the plaintiff must prove that the identification resulted from a conspiracy between officials and the victim, and that the indictment was the result of fraud, perjury, or suppression of evidence. The court emphasized that the decision to present the matter to the Grand Jury was made by the District Attorney, for whose acts the city is not responsible. Detective Barbagallo’s role was also considered, and the court noted that he did not testify before the Grand Jury, nor was it shown that he withheld information. The court analyzed that Barbagallo’s investigation was not egregiously flawed as to indicate intentional or reckless action. Even if not all possible procedures were followed, the positive identifications and exact description of the plaintiff justified the actions taken. The court compared the situation to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, referencing sections related to malicious prosecution. The court noted: “While the evidence suggests that not all procedures that could have been followed were followed in fact, it does not establish that the omissions were improper, much less egregious, given the positive identifications and exact description referred to above”. In essence, the Court required a showing that the police deviated egregiously from proper activity to prove intentional or reckless action, which was not demonstrated in this case.