Lee v. City of Mount Vernon, 49 N.Y.2d 1041 (1980)
A Grand Jury indictment in New York creates a presumption of probable cause in a malicious prosecution action, which can only be overcome by evidence of police misconduct, such as fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence, or bad faith.
Summary
Lee sued the City of Mount Vernon for malicious prosecution after murder charges against him were dismissed due to lack of direct evidence. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Grand Jury indictment created a presumption of probable cause, and if so, whether Lee presented sufficient evidence to overcome it. The Court held that the indictment did create a presumption of probable cause, and Lee failed to demonstrate that the police acted in bad faith or suppressed evidence. The dismissal of the indictment by the District Attorney was deemed simply an acknowledgment of insufficient evidence for trial, not an admission of a lack of probable cause for the initial arrest. The malicious prosecution claim was dismissed.
Facts
On March 3, 1974, police investigated a knifing and found Emelio Hernandez fatally stabbed and Lee lying nearby. Witnesses reported seeing Lee arguing and fighting with another man, with Lee wielding a knife. Lee claimed he was hit on the head and remembered nothing further. The police investigation led to Lee’s indictment for second-degree murder. However, 22 months later, the District Attorney moved to dismiss the indictment because there was no direct evidence linking Lee to Hernandez’s death, only evidence that Lee had been in a fight in the area where Hernandez was found.
Procedural History
Lee sued the City for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The City defaulted, but stipulated that Lee would need to establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. The trial court ruled in favor of Lee, awarding $250,000. The Appellate Division reduced damages to $125,000. The City appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, contesting only the malicious prosecution claim.
Issue(s)
Whether a Grand Jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause in a subsequent malicious prosecution action against the police?
Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of probable cause arising from the Grand Jury indictment?
Holding
Yes, because the Grand Jury acts judicially, and it is presumed to have acted regularly.
No, because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the police acted in bad faith, misrepresented or suppressed evidence, or otherwise engaged in misconduct to secure the indictment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that a Grand Jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause. To overcome this presumption, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the police “have not made a complete and full statement of facts either to the Grand Jury or to the District Attorney, that they have misrepresented or falsified evidence, that they have withheld evidence or otherwise acted in bad faith.” The Court distinguished New York law from other jurisdictions where the presumption can be overcome by any evidence showing the absence of probable cause. The Court found that the plaintiff’s arguments, including the lack of direct evidence and discrepancies in witness descriptions, did not establish fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence, or bad faith on the part of the police. The court stated that “[t]he rule is founded upon the premise that the Grand Jury acts judicially and it may be presumed that it has acted regularly.” The dismissal of the indictment was merely a concession that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to convict, not an admission of a lack of probable cause for the initial arrest. Therefore, the Court modified the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the malicious prosecution claim.