Summary
requiring a plaintiff claiming that he was jailed unlawfully to prove intent and lack of privilege to establish a claim of false imprisonment
Summary of this case from Bundy v. StateOpinion
No. 76-798
Decided May 4, 1977.
False imprisonment — Jury finding not disturbed, when — Unlawful detention for alleged misdemeanor.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
On October 17, 1970, Santiago Feliciano, Sr., and his two sons, Jose and Santiago, Jr. (the Felicianos), went to visit a third son and brother, Roberto, who was then incarcerated in the Cuyahoga County Jail. After the visit, they became involved in an altercation with sheriff's deputies stationed on the eighth floor of the jail building. Testimony of record is in conflict as to what caused the dispute and what occurred thereafter.
Jose and Santiago, Jr., testified that the dispute arose when a sheriff's deputy, becoming irritated by the fact that the Felicianos were talking to Roberto in Spanish, threw visiting cards at Santiago, Jr., after the visit. Sheriff's deputies testified, on the other hand, that the dispute arose when Santiago, Sr., refused to leave the visiting area.
With respect to what occurred after the dispute arose, the Felicianos testified that the father commented on the alleged incident of the visiting cards by saying something concerning "stupid people," and that, subsequently, deputy Sheriff Fenn came into the room and asked the father whom he was calling "stupid." Fenn allegedly made threatening gestures toward the father, and sprayed mace on the three Felicianos. They stated further that as they were preparing to leave the premises, fellow deputies eventually had to restrain Fenn.
Deputy Sheriff Clark, on the other hand, testified that, upon returning the visiting cards to the father when the visiting time was up, Santiago, Sr., threw the cards on the floor and laughed, whereupon Clark called for assistance. According to Clark, when he grabbed Roberto's arm to escort him out of the visiting area, the father grabbed Clark's arm.
Deputy Fenn testified that upon his arrival on the eighth floor, he saw Santiago, Sr., shoving Deputy Sheriff Gasper, who was trying to persuade the father to leave. Fenn stated that he also asked the father to leave, but with no success. Finally, Fenn testified that he sprayed mace on the father's chest.
After the incident, Santiago, Sr., was held for investigation at the jail over the weekend, and on the following Monday was charged with assault and battery of deputy Gasper. The charge was later dismissed.
In October 1971, the Felicianos filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas against the appellants, Sheriff Ralph E. Kreiger and deputy Fenn, alleging, inter alia, false imprisonment of the father.
On January 8, 1975, the jury of eight unanimously found for Santiago Feliciano, Sr., with respect to the charge of false imprisonment, awarding him the sum of $5,000, and judgment was entered upon the verdict.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The cause is now before this court upon allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Disbro Ellerin Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Raymond P. Macoska, for appellees.
Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Richard A. Hoenigman, for appellants.
False imprisonment has been succinctly defined in the following manner: " * * * to confine one intentionally without lawful privilege and against his consent within a limited area for any appreciable time, however short." 1 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, 226, Section 3.7 (1956).
At the time of the arrest in the instant cause, R.C. 2935.03 provided, in pertinent part, that "[a] sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshall, deputy marshall, or police officer shall arrest and detain a person found violating a law of this state, or an ordinance of a municipal corporation, until a warrant can be obtained." The language "found violating" has been interpreted to mean that an officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only when committed in his presence. State v. Mathews (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 72, 75-76.
This section was amended by Am. Sub. House Bill No. 511, effective January 1, 1974.
At the trial level, therefore, the issue revolved around whether Santiago Feliciano, Sr., committed an assault and battery on a sheriff's deputy in the presence of deputy Fenn. The testimony was in conflict as to the events that occurred. Although deputies Fenn and Clark testified that they witnessed Santiago Feliciano, Sr., unlawfully resist law enforcement authorities through the use of physical force, the Felicianos testified that the appellant Fenn was the aggressor.
Since reasonable minds could reach different conclusions concerning this testimony, determination as to what occurred was a question of fact for the jury. Paragraph five of the syllabus in State v. Antill (1964), 176 Ohio St. 61. This court on review will not disturb this jury finding so long as there was competent evidence to support it. Paragraph one of the syllabus in Landis v. Kelly (1875), 27 Ohio St. 567; paragraph two of the syllabus in Katz v. American Finance Co. (1925), 112 Ohio St. 24; State, ex rel. Pomeroy, v. Webber (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 84.
See State, ex rel. Morris, v. Mills (W.Va. 1974), 203 S.E.2d 362; White v. Pierson (Colo.App. 1974), 533 P.2d 514.
In the instant cause, the testimony as provided by the Felicianos could justify the jury's conclusion that appellants Kreiger and Fenn were liable to Santiago Feliciano, Sr., for false imprisonment.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN, STERN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.
STERN, J., retired, assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6 (C), Article IV, Constitution, sitting for P. BROWN, J.