Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Booker v. Turberville
Citations: 500 So. 2d 1108; 1986 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1546Docket: Civ. 5499
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; November 18, 1986; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Edward N. Scruggs, Retired Circuit Judge, addressed a malicious prosecution case involving Booker, who was charged by Alabama game wardens Turberville and McDaniel for hunting at night, a misdemeanor that was ultimately nol-prossed by the state. Subsequently, Booker sued the wardens for malicious prosecution. The trial court granted the wardens a directed verdict, citing probable cause for the arrest. In response, the wardens filed their own malicious prosecution suit against Booker, claiming he acted with malice and without probable cause in filing his initial case. A jury sided with the wardens, awarding them $6,600 in damages. Booker appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence of malice or lack of probable cause, and claimed entitlement to a directed verdict based on his reliance on his attorneys' advice. Evidence indicated that the game wardens acted upon complaints of night hunting and observed suspicious activity involving Booker and others on the night in question. They arrested Booker and confiscated weapons and a spotlight, which were returned after the charges were nol-prossed. Testimony revealed that hunting at night and shining a spotlight after 10:00 PM was illegal in Alabama, and that the season for deer hunting was closed at that time. Booker admitted to spotlighting to check on goats that had escaped due to an electric fence failure caused by Hurricane Frederic. Despite the general nature of his claims during consultation with a Mobile law firm, he asserted he discussed all relevant facts. The game wardens provided specific details about their damages and actions leading to the arrest. The Bookers engaged a law firm under a contingent fee arrangement to pursue a malicious prosecution case against the game wardens, seeking $2,710,000 in damages. The trial court granted the game wardens' motion for a directed verdict, concluding they had probable cause for the criminal charges against the Bookers, and no appeal was made. The court's ruling established res judicata regarding the game wardens' probable cause but not regarding Booker’s probable cause for his malicious prosecution action. The evidence indicated that the directed verdict strongly suggested Booker lacked probable cause to file his malicious prosecution case. To succeed on the defense of advice of counsel, Booker needed to prove he fully disclosed all material facts to his attorneys and acted on their advice. However, Booker's testimony was vague and lacked specifics about what he disclosed, leaving it for the jury to determine whether he adequately satisfied this burden. The jury ultimately found that Booker did not possess probable cause, and this verdict was upheld, affirming the trial court's decision. Malice can be inferred from a lack of probable cause. The opinion was authored by retired Circuit Judge Edward N. Scruggs and adopted by the court, with all judges concurring.