Malicious Prosecution as a Cause of Action in Connecticut

Malicious prosecution is a tort recognized under Connecticut law that offers a remedy to individuals who have been wrongfully subjected to criminal proceedings. However, it is an action disfavored by the courts due to its stringent requirements. This means plaintiffs must meet specific and demanding criteria to succeed in a malicious prosecution claim.

The Connecticut courts have firmly established the elements required to prove malicious prosecution. A plaintiff must demonstrate the following four elements:

1. The defendant initiated or procured the institution of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff.
   This means the defendant played an active role in causing the criminal charges to be brought. It is not enough for the defendant to have provided information; they must have directly or indirectly influenced the initiation of the proceedings.
2. The criminal proceedings have terminated in favor of the plaintiff.
   To satisfy this element, the underlying criminal case must have been resolved in a way that reflects the plaintiff’s innocence. This could include an acquittal, dismissal of charges, or similar favorable outcome.
3. The defendant acted without probable cause.
   Probable cause exists when there are reasonable grounds to believe the person being prosecuted committed the alleged offense. The absence of probable cause means the defendant had no reasonable basis for initiating the prosecution.
4. The defendant acted with malice, primarily for a purpose other than bringing an offender to justice.
   Malice can be proven by showing that the defendant’s primary motive was personal animosity, revenge, or another improper purpose. It is not necessary to show actual ill will; malice can be inferred from a lack of probable cause and other surrounding circumstances.

These elements highlight the high burden of proof placed on plaintiffs in malicious prosecution cases. Courts in Connecticut have consistently emphasized the strict application of these requirements to ensure that the claim is not misused.

Find the Law

The elements of malicious prosecution were explained in Giannamore v. Shevchuk, 108 Conn. App. 303, 310-11 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008), citing the following legal standards:

“An action for malicious prosecution against a private person requires a plaintiff to prove that:

1. The defendant initiated or procured the institution of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff;
2. The criminal proceedings have terminated in favor of the plaintiff;
3. The defendant acted without probable cause; and
4. The defendant acted with malice, primarily for a purpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice.”

These stringent requirements reflect the limited scope of malicious prosecution claims under Connecticut law.