Johnny Moffitt v. Orbin McPeake
Syllabus
A man convicted of aggravated assault filed suit for malicious prosecution against the other three persons involved in the altercation that led to his conviction. The trial court determined that the statute of limitations had run on the malicious prosecution claim. We affirm on a different ground: the plaintiff has no claim for malicious prosecution because the aggravated assault case has not been terminated in his favor.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the Confrontation Clause only “guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish” (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted)
- noting that courts presume juries follow instructions, absent “an overwhelming probability” to the contrary (citation omitted)
- evidentiary rulings only reversed if “they constitute a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion” (quoting United States v. Holy Bull, 613 F.3d 871, 873 (8th Cir. 2010)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge Andy D. Bennett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.