Michael v. Matson

Citations

• 81 Kan. 360
• 105 P. 537
• 1909 Kan. LEXIS 371

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Malicious Prosecution — Probable Cause a Question of Law —Erroneous Instruction. In an action for malicious prosecution the question of what information is sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent man in believing another guilty of a crime is one of law, and it is substantial error to submit it to the jury. An instruction that in order for probable cause for an arrest to exist the facts must be such as would justify an ordinarily prudent person in entertaining a belief in another’s guilt, and that whether such facts had come to the knowledge of the defendant at the time he caused the arrest of the plaintiff is a question for the jury to determine, is likely to be understood by the jury to mean that they are to decide not only what information the defendant had but whether it was enough to justify a reasonable belief in the plaintiff’s guilt. Such an instruction, unless accompanied by a clear and accurate statement of what specific facts under the circumstances of the particular case would, if found to exist, be sufficient under the law for that purpose, is materially • erroneous.</p> <p>2. -Probable Cause. What constitutes probable cause for an arrest is a question of law, and if a complaining witness believed upon reasonable grounds that the accused was guilty it is not material, in an action against him for malicious prosecution, whether he believed that probable cause existed in a legal sense, unless as bearing upon the question of malice.</p> <p>3. -Same. It is not necessary in order for probable cause for an arrest to exist that the accuser shall believe that he has sufficient evidence to procure a conviction of the accused.</p> <p>4. Evidence — Communications to a Public Prosecutor — Privilege. Communications made by a complaining witness to the prosecuting attorney concerning his knowledge of matters relating to the probable guilt or innocence of the defendant are privileged, and can not be given in evidence over his obje