From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jordan v. Deese

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 9, 1995
317 S.C. 260 (S.C. 1995)

Opinion

24176

Heard December 9, 1994

Decided January 9, 1995 Rehearing Denied February 8, 1995

Appeal From Trial Court, Aiken County, Rodney A. Peeples, J.

John G. O'Day, of Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Allen, Deneen Taylor, P.A., West Columbia, for appellant.

Catharine Garbee Griffin, of Baker, Barwick, Ravenel and Bender, Columbia, for respondents.


Appellant contends the trial judged 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. 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.

See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-22-10 through -170 (1985 and Supp. 1993).

There are six elements which must be proven in a malicious prosecution action:

(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 plaintiff's 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.


Summaries of

Jordan v. Deese

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 9, 1995
317 S.C. 260 (S.C. 1995)
Case details for

Jordan v. Deese

Case Details

Full title:Thomas F. Jordan, Appellant v. L. Frank Deese and Chemphar, Inc.…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jan 9, 1995

Citations

317 S.C. 260 (S.C. 1995)
452 S.E.2d 838

Citing Cases

Zimbelman v. Savage

(e) Resulting injury or damage. (Jordan v. Deese, 452 S.E.2d 838, 879 (S.C. 1995)). 10. Plaintiff Michalik…

Travelers v. United Food Commercial

Under South Carolina law, the elements of malicious prosecution are 1) institution or continuation of…