Boyle, J.
In this case we are asked to decide whether the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff had not proven the element of lack of probable cause in this malicious prosecution suit. As the Court of Appeals noted, ”[t]he basis for the trial court’s ruling was a finding that as a matter of law defendants had probable cause to initiate criminal prosecution against plaintiff.” We find that this determination was correctly made by the trial court as to all defendants, and we reverse that portion of the opinion of the Court of Appeals which had remanded the case for a jury determination of this question.
Basically, the record in this case reveals the following facts. Aldred Koski, as agent for Monitor Publications, Ltd., entered into a contract with the Madison Heights Police Officers Association to publish a police magazine. The contract provided that advertisements would be sold to local businesses and that all advertising revenues would be deposited in the mhpoa account. Mr. Koski would then be paid a certain amount for expenses and a share of the profits (see n 6).
Approximately two years later, several Madison [427]*427Heights police officers met with the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office to discuss allegations that Mr. Koski was converting checks made out to the mhpoa. An investigation was undertaken by Mr. Danny Daniel of the prosecutor’s office and charges were later authorized. At the preliminary examination, Mr. Koski was discharged when the Secretary-Treasurer of the mhpoa failed to appear to testify.
Mr. Koski began the instant suit for malicious prosecution against seven defendants: five Madison Heights police officers, the Oakland County Prosecutor, and Mr. Daniel. At trial, after the plaintiff had completed his proofs, the court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, finding as a matter of law that defendants had probable cause to initiate criminal prosecution against Mr. Koski.1
Mr. Koski appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed as to all defendants except Mr. Daniel. It then remanded to the trial court for a new trial as to the remaining defendant. We granted Mr. Daniel leave to appeal.
It is well-settled in this state that, in a malicious prosecution action, absent a dispute of fact, the question of probable cause is a question of law to be determined by the court. Modla v Miller, 344 Mich 21; 73 NW2d 220 (1955); Baker v Barach, 197 Mich 219; 297 NW 472 (1941). The Court of Appeals in this case found that there was a disputed question of fact as to whether Mr. Koski had a claim of right to the funds and, on this basis, concluded that it became a question for the jury whether Mr. Daniel had probable cause to believe [428]*428that the plaintiff had committed an offense.2 It was undisputed, however, that Mr. Daniel had knowledge of Mr. Koski’s claim.3 Therefore, the issue of probable cause in this case was a question of law for the judge to be determined on the basis of what Mr. Daniel ascertained during his investigation.4 Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 119, p 876. The record reflects that at the time Mr. Daniel was authorized to request a warrant, he had taken the following steps and developed the following facts.
Mr. Daniel met initially with Assistant Prosecutor Richard Thompson, Madison Heights Chief of Police Joseph Whitefield, mhpoa President Kenneth Vohs, and two other police officers to discuss allegations that Mr. Koski was converting funds to his own use. Mr. Daniel was advised that the contract between the mhpoa and Mr. Koski provided that all advertisement revenues were to be paid to the mhpoa and that mhpoa was then to pay Mr. Koski’s expenses and a profit, if any, of seventy percent of all monies received after the first $5,000. He then interviewed Elsie Keil, secretary to the Chief of Police, who stated that Mr. Koski had picked up checks made out to the mhpoa and that she had only given them to him after Lieutenant Sloan, who was not authorized to [429]*429release the checks, ordered her to do so. Mr. Daniel subsequently interviewed Richard Jackson of Spalding, DeDecker & Associates who stated that a man described as sixty years old, small frame with gray hair, had entered his office and requested payment for an advertisement in the Monitor magazine. Mr. Jackson further stated that, when he pointed out that the invoice required checks to be made out to the mhpoa, the person identified himself as Dennis Carley and suggested that it be made out to Monitor/mhpoa. Mr. Daniel then talked to Dennis Carley, the Secretary-Treasurer of the mhpoa who stated that he routinely paid Mr. Koski from monies received and under no circumstances was Mr. Koski authorized to have any money from the advertisements without it first being deposited in the association account. Officer Carley showed Mr. Daniel the record books, and Mr. Daniel instructed him to balance all names of advertisers listed in the magazine against those who had paid the association and provide a list of those who were in the magazine but for whom there was no record of payment to the mhpoa. Mr. Daniel then received a list of eight checks.
After receiving the list, Mr. Daniel interviewed the manager of Howard Johnson’s who stated that he had not paid because he never authorized the advertisement. Mr. Daniel then talked to Tony Brenza, the General Manager of Oakland Dodge, Inc., who produced a cancelled check for $420 made payable to the mhpoa and endorsed by Mr. Koski. Mr. Brenza stated that the check would not have been written until the requesting agency arrived to pick it up. Thereupon, Mr. Daniel talked to Edward Hellner, the comptroller, who verified his signature, and to George Hensely, the Sales Manager, who identified a picture of Mr. [430]*430Koski as the man who had made the request for the check.
Mr. Daniel then obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of all bank accounts for Monitor magazine at Michigan National Bank. This search turned up the fact that the $100 check from Spalding, DeDecker & Associates was not deposited in either the mhpoa account or the Monitor account, but cashed for Mr. Koski by Rick Dowell, one of the tellers.
Lieutenant Gerald Sloan was then interviewed, and he stated that he had known Mr. Koski for ten years, had filed corporation papers for Mr. Koski, and had named himself as resident agent because a permanent address was needed. Lieutenant Sloan further stated that he only authorized the release of checks because Mrs. Keil had read the address on the envelopes to him on the phone and they were addressed to the Monitor magazine. Mrs. Keil was again interviewed and denied that she had read the envelopes to Lieutenant Sloan, and, further, she again verified that they were addressed to the mhpoa.
Mr. Daniel next interviewed Rick Dowell, the bank teller who had cashed the Spalding, DeDecker check, who stated that he thought it was unusual that Mr. Koski was cashing checks for the police department, but that he had assumed it was all right because Mr. Koski was friends with the bank manager.
Later, Mr. Daniel requested an audit of the mhpoa books and interviewed Mr. Koski informally and then formally, with Mr. Koski’s attorney, in the prosecutor’s office.
As this Court stated in Clanan v Nushzno, 261 Mich 423, 427; 246 NW 168 (1933):
When the material facts are undisputed and in [431]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Boyle, J.
In this case we are asked to decide whether the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff had not proven the element of lack of probable cause in this malicious prosecution suit. As the Court of Appeals noted, ”[t]he basis for the trial court’s ruling was a finding that as a matter of law defendants had probable cause to initiate criminal prosecution against plaintiff.” We find that this determination was correctly made by the trial court as to all defendants, and we reverse that portion of the opinion of the Court of Appeals which had remanded the case for a jury determination of this question.
Basically, the record in this case reveals the following facts. Aldred Koski, as agent for Monitor Publications, Ltd., entered into a contract with the Madison Heights Police Officers Association to publish a police magazine. The contract provided that advertisements would be sold to local businesses and that all advertising revenues would be deposited in the mhpoa account. Mr. Koski would then be paid a certain amount for expenses and a share of the profits (see n 6).
Approximately two years later, several Madison [427]*427Heights police officers met with the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office to discuss allegations that Mr. Koski was converting checks made out to the mhpoa. An investigation was undertaken by Mr. Danny Daniel of the prosecutor’s office and charges were later authorized. At the preliminary examination, Mr. Koski was discharged when the Secretary-Treasurer of the mhpoa failed to appear to testify.
Mr. Koski began the instant suit for malicious prosecution against seven defendants: five Madison Heights police officers, the Oakland County Prosecutor, and Mr. Daniel. At trial, after the plaintiff had completed his proofs, the court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict, finding as a matter of law that defendants had probable cause to initiate criminal prosecution against Mr. Koski.1
Mr. Koski appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed as to all defendants except Mr. Daniel. It then remanded to the trial court for a new trial as to the remaining defendant. We granted Mr. Daniel leave to appeal.
It is well-settled in this state that, in a malicious prosecution action, absent a dispute of fact, the question of probable cause is a question of law to be determined by the court. Modla v Miller, 344 Mich 21; 73 NW2d 220 (1955); Baker v Barach, 197 Mich 219; 297 NW 472 (1941). The Court of Appeals in this case found that there was a disputed question of fact as to whether Mr. Koski had a claim of right to the funds and, on this basis, concluded that it became a question for the jury whether Mr. Daniel had probable cause to believe [428]*428that the plaintiff had committed an offense.2 It was undisputed, however, that Mr. Daniel had knowledge of Mr. Koski’s claim.3 Therefore, the issue of probable cause in this case was a question of law for the judge to be determined on the basis of what Mr. Daniel ascertained during his investigation.4 Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 119, p 876. The record reflects that at the time Mr. Daniel was authorized to request a warrant, he had taken the following steps and developed the following facts.
Mr. Daniel met initially with Assistant Prosecutor Richard Thompson, Madison Heights Chief of Police Joseph Whitefield, mhpoa President Kenneth Vohs, and two other police officers to discuss allegations that Mr. Koski was converting funds to his own use. Mr. Daniel was advised that the contract between the mhpoa and Mr. Koski provided that all advertisement revenues were to be paid to the mhpoa and that mhpoa was then to pay Mr. Koski’s expenses and a profit, if any, of seventy percent of all monies received after the first $5,000. He then interviewed Elsie Keil, secretary to the Chief of Police, who stated that Mr. Koski had picked up checks made out to the mhpoa and that she had only given them to him after Lieutenant Sloan, who was not authorized to [429]*429release the checks, ordered her to do so. Mr. Daniel subsequently interviewed Richard Jackson of Spalding, DeDecker & Associates who stated that a man described as sixty years old, small frame with gray hair, had entered his office and requested payment for an advertisement in the Monitor magazine. Mr. Jackson further stated that, when he pointed out that the invoice required checks to be made out to the mhpoa, the person identified himself as Dennis Carley and suggested that it be made out to Monitor/mhpoa. Mr. Daniel then talked to Dennis Carley, the Secretary-Treasurer of the mhpoa who stated that he routinely paid Mr. Koski from monies received and under no circumstances was Mr. Koski authorized to have any money from the advertisements without it first being deposited in the association account. Officer Carley showed Mr. Daniel the record books, and Mr. Daniel instructed him to balance all names of advertisers listed in the magazine against those who had paid the association and provide a list of those who were in the magazine but for whom there was no record of payment to the mhpoa. Mr. Daniel then received a list of eight checks.
After receiving the list, Mr. Daniel interviewed the manager of Howard Johnson’s who stated that he had not paid because he never authorized the advertisement. Mr. Daniel then talked to Tony Brenza, the General Manager of Oakland Dodge, Inc., who produced a cancelled check for $420 made payable to the mhpoa and endorsed by Mr. Koski. Mr. Brenza stated that the check would not have been written until the requesting agency arrived to pick it up. Thereupon, Mr. Daniel talked to Edward Hellner, the comptroller, who verified his signature, and to George Hensely, the Sales Manager, who identified a picture of Mr. [430]*430Koski as the man who had made the request for the check.
Mr. Daniel then obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of all bank accounts for Monitor magazine at Michigan National Bank. This search turned up the fact that the $100 check from Spalding, DeDecker & Associates was not deposited in either the mhpoa account or the Monitor account, but cashed for Mr. Koski by Rick Dowell, one of the tellers.
Lieutenant Gerald Sloan was then interviewed, and he stated that he had known Mr. Koski for ten years, had filed corporation papers for Mr. Koski, and had named himself as resident agent because a permanent address was needed. Lieutenant Sloan further stated that he only authorized the release of checks because Mrs. Keil had read the address on the envelopes to him on the phone and they were addressed to the Monitor magazine. Mrs. Keil was again interviewed and denied that she had read the envelopes to Lieutenant Sloan, and, further, she again verified that they were addressed to the mhpoa.
Mr. Daniel next interviewed Rick Dowell, the bank teller who had cashed the Spalding, DeDecker check, who stated that he thought it was unusual that Mr. Koski was cashing checks for the police department, but that he had assumed it was all right because Mr. Koski was friends with the bank manager.
Later, Mr. Daniel requested an audit of the mhpoa books and interviewed Mr. Koski informally and then formally, with Mr. Koski’s attorney, in the prosecutor’s office.
As this Court stated in Clanan v Nushzno, 261 Mich 423, 427; 246 NW 168 (1933):
When the material facts are undisputed and in [431]*431the opinion of the court constitute probable cause, he should direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. When the facts are in dispute, the question is for the jury with instructions as to what constitutes probable cause.
"The general rule of the common law, sustained by the overwhelming weight of authority, both in England and America, is that what facts, and whether particular facts, constitute probable cause is a question of law, which the judge must decide upon the facts found to exist in the particular case, and which it is error of him to submit to the decision of the jury.” 18 RCL § 39, p 58,
and, as was reiterated in Drobczyk v Great Lakes Steel Corp, 367 Mich 318, 325-326; 116 NW2d 736 (1962):
Inasmuch as there was no dispute as to the material facts in the case the question whether plaintiff had sustained the burden of proof on the issue of want of probable cause was a question of law for the court. [Emphasis added.]
Justice Levin relies on Thompson v Price, 100 Mich 558; 59 NW 253 (1894), for the proposition that the instant case should properly have been submitted to the jury to determine the question of probable cause. However, in Thompson there was a factual dispute as to whether or not the defendant had talked to the only person with knowledge of the facts. As this Court stated, in upholding a jury verdict for the plaintiff,
[T]he testimony of' the defendant is that he talked with Mr. Enos upon the subject, and that Mr. Enos told him that plaintiff did not ask for any statement of his (Enos’) taxable property, and the defendant testifies that he communicated this to the prosecuting attorney. . . . But, as before stated, Mr. Enos testified that, according to his [432]*432recollection, he never made any such statement to the defendant prior to the arrest of plaintiff. [Id. at 562.]
Because there were disputed facts in Thompson as to the probable cause issue itself, the judge was correct in allowing the jury to determine the issues. Thompson is inapposite to the instant case.
Therefore, the only determination to be made in this case is whether, where it is undisputed that the plaintiff claimed he had a right to the money but other evidence in defendant Daniel’s possession did not support this claim, the trial court correctly found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not adequate to prove the element of lack of probable cause.5 I can find no reason not to so conclude.
As the trial judge properly decided, it was the court, and not the jury, which was required to decide the question of probable cause, a determination which "involves only the conduct of a reasonable man under the circumstances.” Prosser & Keeton, supra, § 119, p 882. In so doing, it was correct to view the facts, not as a legal technician would view them, but as the prudent, cautious person would see the situation. Merriam v Continental Motors Corp, 339 Mich 546; 64 NW2d 691 (1954); Clanan v Nushzno, supra. In this case, the standard required a finding that Danny Daniel had probable cause to believe a crime had been committed when he approached the prosecutor. Although it was argued that Mr. Koski’s assertion that he was entitled to the money, if found to be true, would negate the specific intent element of [433]*433the crime of larceny, the trial judge correctly found that Mr. Daniel was not required to make a determination as to intent "beyond a reasonable doubt” before proceeding or to judge the situation as would a legal scholar.
It is true that, in a criminal trial, a finding of a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Koski’s larcenous intent, based upon a bona fide belief in his right to the money, would require acquittal. People v Hillhouse, 80 Mich 580; 45 NW 484 (1890); Commentary to CJI 23:6:01, p 23-50. It is clearly not true, however, that probable cause was negated simply because Mr. Koski said he had a right to endorse the checks and apply the proceeds to expenses, when the only people with authority to allow Mr. Koski to endorse the checks, the officers of the Madison Heights Police Officers Association, told Mr. Daniel that Mr. Koski had no such authority. As Danny Daniel noted at trial, when asked if Mr. Koski had asserted he had a right to the money, "That doesn’t make it true.” Mr. Daniel had been told by the officers of the mhpoa that Mr. Koski did not have permission and Mr. Daniel was also aware that the contract, signed by Mr. Koski, provided that all checks were to be deposited in the mhpoa account.6
[434]*434Since probable cause is a matter of the appearances presented to the defendant, a mistake of fact as to the conduct of the accused will of course not prevent its existence. Some courts have held that a mistake of law, as to whether such conduct amounts to a criminal offense, or to the particular offense charged, cannot protect the instigator of prosecution — apparently upon the antique and questionable theory that he is required at his peril to know the law. For the most part such cases appear to have involved mistakes of law so extreme that they would be unreasonable even for a layman to make. [Prosser & Keeton, supra, § 119, p 877.][7]
[435]*435If the trial court had accepted the argument that Daniel’s knowledge of a possible "defense” negated probable cause as a matter of law, it would have been opening up a veritable Pandora’s box. At this point, according to my colleagues’ reasoning, despite an allegation of a crime, objective evidence in corroboration, and an admission by the suspect, a civilian would have to undertake a full-scale effort to resolve conflicting allegations which would, in essence, amount to a complete trial where guilt and innocence would be determined by a jury of one — one who would still be at peril if a reasonable mistake of law or fact were made.
This Court directly addressed this type of situation in DeVitis v Newcomb-Endicott Co, 264 Mich 1; 249 NW 487 (1933), and correctly concluded that such an investigation was not required. In DeVitis, the defendant in the malicious prosecution action had informed the prosecutor that the plaintiff had sold property which she had leased by signed contract from the defendant. It was later learned, after the plaintiff had been acquitted, that the plaintiff, according to the custom in the industry at that time, had signed a blank sheet and was unaware that it was a lease and not an open credit account. In reversing a judgment for the plaintiff and finding that a verdict should have been directed for the defendant, we noted:
The record is wholly to the effect that Mr. Maynard disclosed to the prosecuting attorney all material facts relating to the matter within his knowledge. He did not investigate to learn what defense or contention, if any, plaintiff intended to [436]*436make, nor was he required to do so. Dunlap v New Zealand Fire & Marine Ins Co, 109 Cal 365 (42 Pac 29) [1895]. He relied on the contract. If he had gone into its antecedents, had checked the original sales slips, he might have learned that the contract had been signed in blank in accordance with store custom, and that plaintiff had had a charge account from which some items were taken into the contract, but he did not do that, and had no such knowledge, nor do we think he was required so to do.
In a note reviewing many cases, 5 ALR 1695, it is said:
"If there are sufficient facts to warrant an ordinarily prudent person in believing that another has committed a crime, failure to make further investigation before instituting a prosecution does not constitute a want of probable cause.”
And, at page 1699:
"It does not show a want of probable cause for a person to fail to exhaust all sources of information before instituting a proceeding.”
And page 1700:
"It does not show a want of probable cause for a person to fail to verify each item of information received, before proceeding thereon.”
If defendant had instituted a civil suit upon the contract, such contract bearing, unquestionably, plaintiffs signature, would have been prima facie evidence in respect of defendant’s rights under it. [264 Mich 4-5.]
These cases stand for the proposition that where there are sufficient facts to warrant a prudent person in defendant’s position to believe that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it, the failure to make a further investigation does not negate probable cause.8
[437]*437The dissenting opinion appears to rest on a feeling that Mr. Daniel should have investigated further. As the history of the investigation demonstrates, the anomaly of this position is that there were no further material facts to be investigated. Had Mr. Daniel undertaken further investigation he could have found, as to Mr. Koski, nothing more than that which he already knew, i.e., Mr. Koski claimed he had a right to the money. The fact that Mr. Daniel might have discovered that an officer of mhpoa had been embezzling money or that the mhpoa had not discharged its obligation to retain the money that it had received in trust to pay the expenses, (post, pp 446-447), is simply immaterial to the issue either of probable cause or of defendant’s duty to investigate regarding Mr. Koski. The possibility that further investigation would have revealed that the person who would have been the chief witness against Mr. Koski was [438]*438himself chargeable with a separate and distinct criminal offense or that Mr. Koski had a civil claim against the mhpoa for breach of its contractual obligation, might have led the prosecutor’s office in the exercise of its discretion to decide not to seek the issuance of a warrant for Mr. Koski. However, the fact that the prosecutor’s office might decline to exercise a warrant for reasons extraneous to the probable cause determination is irrelevant to whether Mr. Daniel had probable cause to believe Mr. Koski had committed a crime.
Although the dissent makes it appear that Mr. Koski had been falsely accused of larceny by conversion, it is undisputed that the contract provided that the advertising revenues were to be deposited in the police officers association account and that Mr. Koski, in fact, forged the endorsement of the mhpoa on various checks. Mr. Koski admitted to Mr. Daniel that he had done so, but claimed it was proper for him to take such action since the mhpoa owed him money, despite his acknowledgment that no officer of the association had agreed to allow this "conversion.” In fact, at one point, Mr. Koski informed Mr. Daniels that the reason he had cashed the checks made out to the mhpoa by Oakland Dodge was because he needed funds "to get up north.”
As Judge Caprathe correctly noted in his dissent in the Court of Appeals:
More importantly, no interpretation of these facts would permit plaintiff to use the self-help method of collecting the civil debt which he believed was owed to him by the association. There were proper legal channels open to plaintiff to collect the alleged debt. The mere fact that plaintiff claimed the association owed a debt to him does not affect the probable cause issue, since it is clear that plaintiff had no legal right to endorse [439]*439the checks with the association’s name or to cash them and convert the funds to his own use. [137 Mich App 491, 525; 358 NW2d 620 (1984).]
Finally, as appellant contends, it appears on this record that Mr. Daniel did make a full and fair disclosure to the assistant prosecuting attorney who authorized the charge.9 Although Mr. Daniel stated that he would have had no reason to specifically tell the prosecutor of Mr. Koski’s claim of right to the money, he did state that the transcribed interview of Mr. Koski by Mr. Daniel would have been given to the prosecuting attorney. Further, Richard Thompson, the prosecutor who authorized the charge, testified that the interview was in the prosecutor’s file and that an assistant prosecutor routinely goes over the documentation in the file. It is well-settled that one who makes a full and fair disclosure to the prosecutor is not subject to an action for malicious prosecution. Modla v Miller, supra. In this case, the trial court could have correctly concluded that Mr. Daniel did so and directed a verdict on that basis.
We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals with regard to Mr. Daniel and reinstate the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
Williams, C.J., and Brickley and Riley, JJ., concurred with Boyle, J.