Blackwell v. Blackwell

Citation: 479 So. 2d 1085Docket: 84-875

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 17, 1985; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

James C. Blackwell appeals a judgment from the Louisiana Court of Appeal awarding his son, James Richard Blackwell, $3,925 for malicious prosecution. The trial court found that James proved all elements necessary for his claim. Mr. Blackwell challenges the ruling on two grounds: he argues that James did not demonstrate that he acted with malice or lacked probable cause when filing criminal charges against him for felony theft and simple criminal damage.

The case arose from a dispute between Mr. and Mrs. Blackwell, wherein James assisted his mother in retrieving personal property from a camp co-owned with Mr. Blackwell. After Mr. Blackwell changed the locks to the camp, Mrs. Blackwell entered through a broken window, and James helped her replace locks and retrieve items, including personal belongings and items belonging to him. Following a heated phone call where Mr. Blackwell accused James of theft and threatened incarceration, Mr. Blackwell filed charges against him. These charges were ultimately dismissed by a grand jury.

To establish malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove: 1) the initiation of a judicial proceeding; 2) legal causation by the defendant; 3) a favorable termination for the plaintiff; 4) absence of probable cause; 5) presence of malice; and 6) legal damages. The court found no dispute regarding the first three elements but addressed Mr. Blackwell's claims of insufficient evidence for malice and lack of probable cause. The court clarified that the determination of probable cause relies on the defendant's honest belief of the facts, not solely on the actual facts of the case. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of James Blackwell.

In the case involving Mr. Blackwell's criminal charges against his son James, the court determined that the charges were filed with malice due to a lack of probable cause. Evidence showed that Mr. Blackwell was aware that James was helping his mother transport personal belongings from their camp, contradicting allegations of breaking and entering. Witness testimonies from James, his wife, and his sister indicated that Mr. Blackwell's actions were driven by personal vendetta rather than legitimate concerns. James recounted a hostile phone call from his father, who expressed intentions to have him imprisoned, while his wife suggested that the actions were aimed at causing her distress. Additionally, the daughter noted that Mr. Blackwell was extremely angry during their conversation and expressed a desire for severe punishment for James. The court highlighted the absence of probable cause, evidenced by a No True Bill from the grand jury, and noted that Mr. Blackwell had been informed prior to filing charges that his wife was involved in the disputed property matters. Overall, the court found overwhelming evidence of malice and lack of probable cause, warranting the conclusion that the criminal charges were unjustified.

The prosecution of the defendant is perceived as retaliatory, stemming from the belief that his children, especially his son, sided with his wife during a marital dispute. The trial court found no error in the case's determinations. Mr. Blackwell claims entitlement to qualified immunity, asserting he acted on the advice of an attorney and public officials when filing charges. However, Louisiana courts recognize qualified immunity for defendants only when there is evidence of prior legal consultation. In this case, the Sheriff of Sabine Parish indicated that the matter was familial, and there is no evidence showing that Blackwell received advice to file the charges. Consequently, he does not qualify for immunity. The trial court's judgment is upheld, with all appeal costs assigned to Blackwell.