Background
Next-door neighbors Stephen Walters and Derrick Bradley had a contentious history, including a civil action in which Walters alleged that Bradley struck him with a truck. While that case was pending, Bradley reported that Walters pointed a firearm at him during a confrontation. Walters denied doing so.
Bradley consulted his attorney, contacted law enforcement on the attorney’s advice, and later signed an affidavit describing the incident. Walters was arrested for second-degree wanton endangerment but was acquitted at trial. He then sued Bradley for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, alleging that Bradley pursued the criminal matter maliciously to retaliate for, or gain an advantage in, the motor-vehicle case. The Greenup Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Bradley.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the abuse-of-process claim because Walters produced no evidence that Bradley used the criminal process for an ulterior purpose or committed an improper act after invoking it. Reporting an alleged gun threat was a reasonable use of legal process, and the record did not show that Bradley used the prosecution to coerce Walters, extract a concession, or secure an advantage in the parties’ civil litigation.
The court also affirmed summary judgment on malicious prosecution because Walters failed to create a genuine factual dispute over probable cause. His acquittal established that the criminal proceeding ended in his favor, but under Kentucky law an acquittal does not itself prove that the prosecution lacked probable cause. Bradley’s account of Walters pointing a gun, the officers’ investigation, and Bradley’s consultation with counsel supported probable cause.
The advice-of-counsel defense provided an additional basis for rejecting the claim. Walters presented no evidence that Bradley inaccurately or incompletely described the relevant facts to his attorney before acting on the attorney’s advice to contact law enforcement. Because Walters could not establish lack of probable cause—an essential element of malicious prosecution—the court did not reach his remaining arguments.
Key Takeaways
- An acquittal satisfies the favorable-termination element of malicious prosecution but is not evidence by itself that the prosecution lacked probable cause.
- Abuse of process requires both an ulterior purpose and an improper use of legal process, such as using proceedings to obtain a collateral advantage.
- Acting on counsel’s advice after fairly and accurately disclosing the relevant facts can establish probable cause and defeat a malicious-prosecution claim.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary burden facing Kentucky plaintiffs who bring tort claims after prevailing in criminal court. A favorable outcome in the criminal case does not permit a jury to infer that the complainant lacked probable cause or misused the proceedings.
It also distinguishes an allegedly improper motive from actionable abuse of process: even parties with a hostile history are not liable merely for reporting suspected criminal conduct unless evidence shows that legal process was improperly employed to achieve a collateral objective.