Quirindongo v. Rolon Morales

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

          September 3, 1992     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

___________________

No. 92-1544

BENJAMIN QUIRINDONGO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            JOSE L. ROLON MORALES, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

__________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                              Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

                    Raul Barrera Morales on brief for appellant.
                    ____________________

__________________

                                  __________________

Per Curiam.  Plaintiff  appeals from a jury  verdict for
                 __________

            defendants (three law enforcement officers) in an action for,

            essentially, malicious prosecution.   Plaintiff contends that

            the  jury  verdict  was  unsupported  by  the  evidence.   We

            disagree.

                 Plaintiff acknowledges  that one of the  elements he was

            required  to prove  was  that  defendants initiated  criminal

            charges  maliciously  and  without  probable  cause.    While

            plaintiff proved that the  charges against him were dismissed

            (when  the prosecutor failed to obey a court order to produce

            a  videotape  which  the  defendants  had  represented  would

            inculpate  plaintiff) and  plaintiff asserted  his innocence,

            the jury  could permissibly  conclude that plaintiff  did not

            adequately   demonstrate   lack   of   probable    cause   or

            maliciousness.   The jury was  not required to  conclude from

            plaintiff's bald assertion of innocence and  the prosecutor's

            failure to  produce the videotape that  the charging officers

            necessarily acted maliciously  and without probable  cause as

            opposed, for  example, to  innocently and upon  a reasonable,

            but ultimately mistaken, belief.

                 The  judgment is  summarily affirmed  pursuant to  First

            Circuit Rule 27.1.         

-2-