Martin v. O’Daniel

After a criminal investigation into Stephen O’Daniel conducted by certain Kentucky State Police officers (collectively, the Officers), O’Daniel was indicted for second-degree forgery. The jury acquitted O’Daniel. Thereafter, O’Daniel brought a malicious prosecution action against the Officers. The Officers moved for summary judgment on the grounds of immunity. The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding that O’Daniel could not establish that the criminal prosecution was instituted “by, or at the instance of” the Officers, as required by Raine v. Drasin. The court also concluded that the officers were shielded from liability by the doctrine of immunity as expressed by the Supreme Court in Rehberg v. Paulk. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Officers were not entitled to dismissal of the malicious prosecution action on grounds of absolute immunity or qualified official immunity; (2) the Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the summary judgment but used an improper standard in remanding the case for consideration; and (3) the expression of the malicious prosecution elements set forth in Raine v. Drasin is hereby abrogated in favor of the articulation set forth in this opinion. View "Martin v. O’Daniel" on Justia Law