Arthur Lane Skinner v. Raymond C. Bevans

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/21/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110147 A r t h u r Lane Skinner v. Raymond C. Bevans Appeal from B u t l e r C i r c u i t (CV-09-70) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . A r t h u r Lane S k i n n e r jury v e r d i c t o f $35,000 Bevans's appeals from a judgment e n t e r e d i n favor assault-and-battery claim on a o f Raymond C. B e v a n s on against him and from summary j u d g m e n t s i n f a v o r o f B e v a n s a s t o s e v e n counterclaims 2110147 he a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t Bevans. part, and remand f o r a new F a c t s and We affirm i n part, reverse trial. Procedural History S k i n n e r and B e v a n s a r e n e i g h b o r s i n r u r a l B u t l e r County. B e v a n s ' s p r o p e r t y f r o n t s on a p u b l i c r o a d ; S k i n n e r ' s is landlocked, but right-of-way another On he easement neighbor. has access that fence to runs the line property p u b l i c road through Bevans's fence September 18, 2007, B e v a n s was his in the via property i s near the a of easement. on t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y o u t s i d e s p r a y i n g h e r b i c i d e on weeds a l o n g the fence line when, a c c o r d i n g t o B e v a n s , S k i n n e r d r o v e up, p a r k e d t h e p i c k u p t r u c k he had been d r i v i n g , and what h a p p e n e d next. differ about turned h i s b a c k on when he h e a r d Skinner s t a r e d a t him. According The to parties Bevans, and was continuing his S k i n n e r s a y , "You m___ f _ _ _ , I owe he spraying you this." S k i n n e r then s t r u c k Bevans r e p e a t e d l y w i t h a m e t a l - t i p p e d rake h a n d l e , i n j u r i n g B e v a n s ' s h e a d , e a r , and arm. other and, hand, claimed t h a t Bevans w a l k e d as t h e p a r t i e s were e x c h a n g i n g S k i n n e r , on to the pickup the truck w o r d s , s p r a y e d him i n t h e face w i t h the h e r b i c i d e , a f t e r which Skinner reached into the bed swung at of his truck, retrieved the 2 rake handle, and 2110147 Bevans t o s t o p the s p r a y i n g . trial as to whether Skinner's o n l y 15 f e e t w i d e and Skinner the scene, a g a i n s t S k i n n e r , and was feet wide or o n l y 15 f e e t w i d e t h e easement during the and He Bevans called the filed a criminal Butler complaint t a k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l , where h i s e a r S k i n n e r was to a warrant 25 assault. left stitched. e a s e m e n t was s t a n d i n g on County s h e r i f f ' s department. was a f a c t u a l dispute at i f t h e easement was w h e t h e r S k i n n e r was a l t e r c a t i o n and T h e r e was a r r e s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g day charging assault felony, see A l a . Code 1975, Skinner was i n d i c t e d by pursuant i n the second degree, a C l a s s C § 13A-6-21. a Butler On F e b r u a r y County grand 26, jury 2008, for the same o f f e n s e . On action September against 16, Skinner, demanding a j u r y t r i a l . pro se, filed 2009, an Bevans alleging filed assault On O c t o b e r 14, answer t h a t stated, August was 12, acquitted 2010, of Skinner, the and civil battery through and acting in i t s entirety: "I On June 18, criminal-assault acting instant 2009, S k i n n e r , denying a l l a l l e g a t i o n s i n your c o m p l a i n t . " Skinner the filed m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o a s s e r t c o u n t e r c l a i m s t h a t , he s a i d , he 3 2010, charge. counsel, am On a had 2110147 not been required counterclaims see to assert were t h e s u b j e c t i n h i s answer a n d h a d " m a t u r e d o r [been] 1 a c q u i r e d " a f t e r he h a d a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t , R. C i v . P. 2 The t r i a l the of "another pending a c t i o n , " R u l e 1 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., Ala. because court granted see Rule Skinner 13(e), leave to amend h i s a n s w e r t o i n c l u d e t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s . On January counterclaims: 20, trespass 2011, to land; Skinner asserted a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y ; imprisonment; m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n ; defamation; 1 seven false negligence; R u l e 1 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Compulsory C o u n t e r c l a i m s . A pleading shall state as a c o u n t e r c l a i m any c l a i m w h i c h a t t h e t i m e o f s e r v i n g t h e p l e a d i n g t h e p l e a d e r h a s a g a i n s t any opposing party, i f i t a r i s e s out of the t r a n s a c t i o n or occurrence that i s the subject matter of the o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s c l a i m a n d does n o t r e q u i r e f o r i t s a d j u d i c a t i o n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h i r d p a r t i e s o f whom the court cannot a c q u i r e jurisdiction. But the p l e a d e r n e e d n o t s t a t e t h e c l a i m i f : (1) a t t h e t i m e t h e a c t i o n was commenced t h e c l a i m was t h e s u b j e c t of another pending a c t i o n (Emphasis added.) 2 R u l e 1 3 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., provides: "A c l a i m w h i c h e i t h e r m a t u r e d o r was a c q u i r e d b y t h e pleader a f t e r s e r v i n g a p l e a d i n g may, w i t h t h e permission of the court, be presented as a c o u n t e r c l a i m by supplemental p l e a d i n g . " 4 2110147 and " e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . " on t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s . of Skinner's S k i n n e r d i d n o t demand a j u r y Bevans d e n i e d t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s counterclaims defenses. Bevans trial and a s s e r t e d v a r i o u s d i d not demand a jury affirmative trial on the c o u n t e r c l a i m s , a n d B e v a n s l a t e r w i t h d r e w h i s own demand f o r a jury t r i a l on t h e a s s a u l t - a n d - b a t t e r y c l a i m s e t f o r t h i n h i s complaint. jury objected demand, and t h e t r i a l pursuant he Skinner t o Rule his having of Bevans's court disallowed the withdrawal, 3 8 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. was a l s o e n t i t l e d despite to the withdrawal to a jury failed trial to 3 Skinner argued t h a t on h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m s , demand one, because his c o u n t e r c l a i m s a r o s e o u t o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n o r o c c u r r e n c e set forth i n Bevans's complaint, were not "new," and, t h e r e f o r e , d i d n o t a c t i v a t e a new 30-day p e r i o d f o r d e m a n d i n g a jury trial. The t r i a l court rejected that argument and b i f u r c a t e d the a c t i o n , s e t t i n g Bevans's c l a i m f o r a j u r y and the counterclaims f o r a bench trial trial. R u l e 3 8 ( d ) s t a t e s t h a t " [ a ] demand f o r t r i a l b y j u r y made as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d may n o t be w i t h d r a w n w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s e x c e p t where an o p p o s i n g p a r t y i s i n d e f a u l t u n d e r Rule 55(a)." 3 5 2110147 After the jury rendered a verdict for Bevans on his a s s a u l t - a n d - b a t t e r y c l a i m , B e v a n s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t as t o S k i n n e r ' s R. Civ. court P., had counterclaims. motion erred f o r a new in Ala. opposition filed on motion for arguing jury the he s a i d , had b e e n a b o l i s h e d by Skinner also filed a to Skinner's motions, new trial Rule the and 59 trial granted motion. court Skinner appeals, erred defense and his a (1) the in duty to the retreat, jury (2) duty to § 13A-3- and in Bevans Following a Skinner's motion for a counterclaims. r a i s i n g three issues: charging trial response denied Bevans's summary j u d g m e n t as t o e a c h o f S k i n n e r ' s court on t o B e v a n s ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n , both 59, A l a . t h a t the 1975. Code a response hearing trial, instructing r e t r e a t , which duty, 23(b), Skinner f i l e d a Rule on whether the trial the self- law in entering a of summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f B e v a n s on e a c h o f h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m s , and (3) his i n concluding that he had waived a jury trial on counterclaims. Standard of Review Each of the i s s u e s S k i n n e r r a i s e s p r e s e n t s a q u e s t i o n l a w f o r w h i c h our r e v i e w i s de novo. 6 Espinoza v. R u d o l p h , of 46 2110147 So. 3d novo 403, the 412 ( A l a . 2010) . trial court's statutes, Scott 1223 de (Ala. 2003). novo, 2d 82, 87 Bridge F.3d Co. 1138, v. the 1141 same s t a n d a r d of rules, 883 So. 2d intended instruction a summary j u d g m e n t review as the L.L.C., 903 J u r y C h a r g e on trial So. a charge conference, to give requested the by jury Self-Defense the trial the court following stated objected, "MS. GIBSON to r e t r e a t . and the Bevans: f o l l o w i n g occurred: [Skinner's counsel]: HAMILTON [ B e v a n s ' s c o u n s e l ] : He And does n o t why have not? "MS. GIBSON: I n s e l f - d e f e n s e , use o f force that i s reasonable and appears to be necessary for p r o t e c t i o n against a threatened battery. Skinner d i d n o t c h a s e a f t e r B e v a n s . He may s t a n d h i s g r o u n d and 7 that self-defense " I n o r d e r t o c l a i m s e l f - d e f e n s e , ... S k i n n e r must e s t a b l i s h t h a t he c o u l d n o t r e t r e a t o r w i t h d r a w f r o m the altercation in safety. I f he could have r e t r e a t e d or withdrawn i n s a f e t y then s e l f - d e f e n s e i s not a defense [to] the c l a i m s of [Bevans]." "MR. 1221, ( A l a . 2004). During Skinner de (11th C i r . 2008), Wright, review reviews procedural T u r n e r v. Westhampton C o u r t , The it 532 I n a d d i t i o n , we applying court applied. appellate court i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of U n i t e d S t a t e s v. E l m e s , and An 2110147 use any injury. f o r c e s h o r t of t h a t l i k e l y to cause You do n o t have t o r e t r e a t . serious "MR. HAMILTON: I b e l i e v e i f [you] look c r i m i n a l code i t r e q u i r e s you r e t r e a t . "MS. GIBSON: I t does "THE COURT: W e l l , sure." The trial conclusion of the go b a c k and charge requested court's oral charge In other his motion things, abolished presented (Ala. court's for that any a a 2006 duty to by t h i s c a s e . C r i m . App. c h a r g e on Skinner erred the supra, amendment other insisted j u r y on make by B e v a n s . before At the Skinner jury to under § argued, the the the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals had circumstances 61 So. d e c i s i o n s by that among 13A-2-23(b) 3d the Court trial a duty to r e t r e a t . court In 1107 of had Blake, stated: " [ T ] h e amendment t o § 1 3 A - 3 - 2 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h removed f r o m t h e d e f e n s e o f s e l f - d e f e n s e t h e d u t y t o r e t r e a t and w h i c h a l l o w s an i n d i v i d u a l t o s t a n d one's g r o u n d , became e f f e c t i v e June 1, 2006. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e 2006 amendment t o § 1 3 A - 3 - 2 3 ( b ) , Ala. Code 1975, provides: 8 the c o u n s e l renewed her C i t i n g B l a k e v. S t a t e 2 0 1 0 ) , and and the duty t o r e t r e a t . trial, retreat Criminal Appeals, i n charging new look and r e t i r e d to consider i t s v e r d i c t , Skinner's o b j e c t i o n to the the not. I will c o u r t gave t h e in 2110147 "'"A p e r s o n who [ o t h e r w i s e s a t i s f i e s t h e c r i t e r i a of self-defense] i n using p h y s i c a l f o r c e , i n c l u d i n g deadly p h y s i c a l f o r c e , and who i s n o t e n g a g e d i n an u n l a w f u l a c t i v i t y and i s i n a n y p l a c e where he o r s h e h a s t h e r i g h t t o be h a s no d u t y t o r e t r e a t a n d h a s the r i g h t t o stand h i s o r h e r ground."'" 61 So. 3d a t 1108-09 970, (quoting Williams v. S t a t e , 46 So. 3d 971 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ) . "[A] m a j o r change e n a c t e d b y t h e new ' s t a n d y o u r ground' law i n v o l v e s i n c i d e n t s t h a t occur o u t s i d e o f t h e home. ... [A] c e n t u r y ' s w o r t h o f c a s e l a w a n d s t a t u t e s became o b s o l e t e w i t h t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e 'stand your ground' l e g i s l a t i o n . Where t h e A l a b a m a Code h a d once e x p r e s s l y r e q u i r e d a d u t y t o r e t r e a t , i t h a s now b e e n e l i m i n a t e d b y [§ 1 3 A - 3 - 2 3 ( b ) ] II II I I "Whereas, i n A l a b a m a , a p e r s o n was r e q u i r e d t o retreat i f reasonable f r o m an a t t a c k anywhere o u t s i d e t h e d w e l l i n g , now t h a t p e r s o n c a n ' s t a n d h i s o r h e r g r o u n d ' anywhere t h e y have a r i g h t t o b e . " J a s o n W. Bobo, F o l l o w i n g t h e T r e n d : A l a b a m a Abandons t h e D u t y to Retreat a n d E n c o u r a g e s C i t i z e n s t o S t a n d T h e i r G r o u n d , 38 Cumb. L. Rev. 339, 362-63 Lest new there (footnotes omitted). be a n y d o u b t a s t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y stand-your-ground defense i n c i v i l (2008) legislation t o the defense of of the self- a c t i o n s , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e l a w e s t a b l i s h e s n o t o n l y an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , b u t a l s o 9 2110147 immunity from c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n and c i v i l 13A-3-23(d), action. Section A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "A p e r s o n who u s e s f o r c e , i n c l u d i n g d e a d l y p h y s i c a l f o r c e , as j u s t i f i e d a n d p e r m i t t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s immune f r o m c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n a n d c i v i l a c t i o n for t h e u s e o f s u c h f o r c e , u n l e s s t h e f o r c e was d e t e r m i n e d t o be u n l a w f u l . " The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s has h e l d t h a t a t r i a l failure one's to give ground a correct instruction i s not harmless on t h e r i g h t because the jury court's to stand could have r e j e c t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d e f e n s e o f s e l f - d e f e n s e b a s e d on t h e erroneous belief See B l a k e , and that the defendant 61 So. 3d a t 1109; Jackson v. S t a t e , had a duty to retreat. W i l l i a m s , 46 So. 3d a t 971-72; 993 So. 2d 45, 48 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). We c o n c l u d e t h a t , i f , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a s s a u l t , was Skinner i n a place he entitled t o have where he h a d a the j u r y charged p r o v i s i o n o f § 13A-3-23(b). to right t o be, then on t h e s t a n d - y o u r - g r o u n d The t r i a l court erred i n f a i l i n g i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t i t must r e s o l v e t h e f a c t u a l as t o where S k i n n e r was dispute was when t h e a s s a u l t t o o k p l a c e i . e . , w h e t h e r he was on h i s e a s e m e n t , a p l a c e where he h a d a r i g h t to b e , o r w h e t h e r he was o u t s i d e t h e e a s e m e n t a n d i n a p l a c e 10 2110147 where he d i d n o t h a v e a r i g h t t o be -- i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r S k i n n e r was e n t i t l e d t o s t a n d h i s g r o u n d p u r s u a n t t o § 13A-3-23(b). On retrial, the t r i a l court should instruct t h e j u r y t h a t i t must f i r s t r e s o l v e t h e p r e d i c a t e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r S k i n n e r was i n a p l a c e he h a d a r i g h t t o be when t h e a s s a u l t t o o k p l a c e -- b e f o r e d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f § 13A-3-23(b). The Summary Judgments on S k i n n e r ' s Initially counterclaims counterclaims occurrence we were note that compulsory. (a) a r o s e a l l but That Counterclaims one of Skinner's i s so because o u t o f t h e same s e t f o r t h i n Bevans's c o m p l a i n t , a l l the transaction or see J J ' s Heating & A i r C o n d i t i o n i n g , I n c . v . G o b b l e - F i t e Lumber Co., 572 So. 2d 1243, 1244-45 ( A l a . 1990) ( q u o t i n g M y e r s v . C l a y c o S t a t e Bank, 687 S.W.2d 256, 260-61 C a n t r e l l v. C i t y 471 (1949)), (Mo. C t . App. 1 9 8 5 ) , q u o t i n g of Caruthersville, i n turn 359 Mo. 282, 221 S.W.2d (b) were l o g i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e c l a i m made t h e s u b j e c t o f B e v a n s ' s c o m p l a i n t , s e e O'Donohue v . C i t i z e n s Bank, 350 So. 2d 1049 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) , a n d a l l b u t o n e , the m a l i c i o u s - p r o s e c u t i o n c o u n t e r c l a i m , (c) e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e o f the service of Skinner's a n s w e r , s e e 1 Champ 11 Lyons, J r . ,& 2110147 A l l y W. 13.1 Howell, ( 4 t h ed. Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure Annotated § 2004). "A c o u n t e r c l a i m w h i c h does n o t e x i s t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s e r v i c e o f an answer c a n n o t be c o m p u l s o r y s i n c e the e x i s t e n c e of a c o u n t e r c l a i m i s determined at the time of s e r v i c e of the answer. Therefore, the r i g h t to a s s e r t a c o u n t e r c l a i m which accrues o n l y a f t e r s e r v i n g t h e p l e a d i n g i s n o t w a i v e d by i t s o m i s s i o n . A c o u n t e r c l a i m maturing or a c q u i r e d a f t e r p l e a d i n g i s a p e r m i s s i v e c o u n t e r c l a i m w h i c h may be presented as a supplemental pleading with the approval of the c o u r t . " Id. a t 358 (citations Skinner's argument " m a t u r e d o r was until June 18, assault that acquired," 2010, charge, prosecution omitted). claim counterclaim. see when he i s simply falls That none was counterclaims Civ. a c q u i t t e d of the incorrect. i n the is his 1 3 ( e ) , A l a . R. Rule of Only category true because of that in without instituting probable proceeding was cause and prior with Inc. a result v. 789 late-maturing elements against of a [Bevans] [ S k i n n e r ] ; (2) [Bevans] acted malice; that prior So. 12 malicious- proceeding of the p r i o r Goodman, criminal- "(1) t h a t (3) e n d e d i n f a v o r o f [ S k i n n e r ] ; and damaged as Stores, the a the m a l i c i o u s - p r o s e c u t i o n cause of a c t i o n are: i n s t i t u t e d a p r i o r j u d i c i a l proceeding the P., 2d (4) t h a t proceeding." 166, 174 the [Skinner] Wal-Mart (Ala. 2000) 2110147 (emphasis added). the classic event' have example of a claim that i s 'linked to a jural -- one i n w h i c h a l l t h e a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e c l a i m been pending completed the SouthTrust 939 "A m a l i c i o u s - p r o s e c u t i o n c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s but the claim outcome of Bank v. J o n e s , another Morrison, i s nonetheless judicial delayed proceeding." Womack & D e a r i n g , P.C., So. 2d 885, 897 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . Likewise, Skinner's argument that he need n o t have a s s e r t e d t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m s i n h i s i n i t i a l answer because they were " t h e s u b j e c t o f a n o t h e r p e n d i n g a c t i o n , " see Rule Ala. "[T]he e x c e p t i o n t o Rule 13(a) R. C i v . P., i s a l s o i n c o r r e c t . does n o t encompass p e n d i n g v. D i P a l e r m o , criminal actions." 13(a), Woodward 98 F.R.D. 621, 623-24 (D.D.C. 1 9 8 3 ) ; s e e a l s o 20 Am. J u r . 2d C o u n t e r c l a i m , Recoupment, a n d S e t - o f f § 15 a t 27 9 (2005). We a l s o note that none of Skinner's b a r r e d by a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . counterclaims "Compulsory counterclaims are n o t d e f e a t e d by g e n e r a l s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n , " & Howell, was 1 Lyons s u p r a § 13.11 a t 373, a n d S k i n n e r ' s s o l e p e r m i s s i v e counterclaim, the malicious-prosecution f i l e d on J a n u a r y counterclaim, was 1 1 , 2011 -- w i t h i n two y e a r s o f t h e d a t e i t 13 2110147 accrued Code o r m a t u r e d on June 18, 2010, see § 6-2-38(l), Ala. 1975. The Bevans trial c o u r t ' s e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f i s due t o be counterclaims -- a f f i r m e d as trespass, to four of false Skinner's imprisonment, seven malicious p r o s e c u t i o n , and d e f a m a t i o n -- b e c a u s e S k i n n e r , t h e p a r t y who had the the burden of elements of those 769 So. 2d 903, counterclaims proof 909 -- trial, See torts. at Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l ( A l a . 1999). assault did not Skinner's and battery, establish Motors Corp., three remaining negligence, and " e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s " -- w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be e n c o m p a s s e d w i t h i n the issues to be decided upon a new trial, as we discuss herein. Trespass. his S k i n n e r a l l e g e d t h a t B e v a n s t r e s p a s s e d upon r i g h t - o f - w a y easement d u r i n g the p a r t i e s ' S e p t e m b e r 18, 2007. The trial court held that Skinner's was without substantive merit, So. 3d 542 533, g i s t o f any to ( A l a . C i v . App. citing 2008) t r e s p a s s a c t i o n i s the possession of p r o p e r t y . altercation W i l l i a m s v. interference with a Absent such r i g h t of claim Moore, (holding that on 36 "'"the right possession, t h e r e can be no a c t i o n b a s e d on t r e s p a s s . " ' " ( q u o t i n g Drummond 14 2110147 Co. v . W a l t e r I n d u s . , I n c . , 962 So. 2d 753, 782 quoting i n t u r n A v e r y v. Geneva C n t y . , (Ala. 1990))), 148, has 150 567 So. 2d 282, 289 and Duke v. P i n e C r e s t Homes, I n c . , 358 So. 2d ( A l a . 1978) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e h o l d e r o f an easement a r i g h t t o damages f o r an u n r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e t h e u s e o f an e a s e m e n t ) . At the t r i a l of t h i s case, acknowledged t h a t Bevans had n o t i n t e r f e r e d w i t h the ( A l a . 2006), Skinner h i s use o f easement. Skinner argues involved a dispute that Duke is inapposite between t h e h o l d e r because a outsider factual dispute between or stranger. distinction, applicable law based the holder We on o f an easement acknowledge the e x i s t e n c e b u t we i t o f an easement a n d t h e owner o f t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e , w h e r e a s t h e p r e s e n t c a s e with with discern the i d e n t i t y no difference o f t h e one deals a n d an of that i n the who has a l l e g e d l y i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e use o f t h e easement, and S k i n n e r has c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t . " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t a r g u m e n t s i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f c o n t a i n ' c i t a t i o n s t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s of t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d on.' F u r t h e r , ' i t i s well settled that a failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) r e q u i r i n g c i t a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h e arguments p r e s e n t e d provides t h i s Court with a b a s i s f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g 15 2110147 t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . ' S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. M o t l e y , 909 So. 2d 806, 822 ( A l a . 2005) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e Showers, 812 So. 2d 277, 281 (Ala. 2001)). T h i s i s so, because ' " i t i s not the f u n c t i o n of t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make and address legal arguments f o r a p a r t y based on u n d e l i n e a t e d g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . " ' B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Dykes v. Lane T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1994))." Jimmy Day Plumbing & Heating, (Ala. 2007). I n c . v. Because Skinner had Smith, 964 So. no p o s s e s s o r y 2d 1, 9 r i g h t i n the easement and f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t B e v a n s had i n t e r f e r e d w i t h h i s use o f t h e e a s e m e n t , he f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g the elements of h i s t r e s p a s s False provides Imprisonment. that "[f]alse detention w h e r e b y he of the Section of City o f H u n t s v i l l e , 677 So. some later as Code f o r any unlawful length liberty." 1975, of A time false- on t h e d a t e o f a r r e s t , J e n n i n g s 2d 228, Skinner 230 ( A l a . 1996), not at the a r r e s t e e i s a c q u i t t e d of the u n d e r l y i n g c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e . Our held that " [ i ] f t o a w a r r a n t i s s u e d by apparently v. assumes, supreme c o u r t has when, another of h i s p e r s o n a l imprisonment c l a i m accrues time 6-5-170, A l a . imprisonment c o n s i s t s i n the person i s deprived claim. an a r r e s t i s made p u r s u a n t a l a w f u l l y a u t h o r i z e d person, 16 neither 2110147 the arrest 'false.'" (citing 1171 the subsequent K a r r i c k v. Goodwin v. (Ala. The nor imprisonment J o h n s o n , 659 Barry Miller So. 2d 77, Chevrolet, is 79 considered (Ala. Inc., 543 1995) So. 2d 1989)). p r o p o s i t i o n s t a t e d i n K a r r i c k , supra, t r u e a f t e r the a d o p t i o n s t a n d - y o u r - g r o u n d law, i s e v e n more of § 13A-3-23(e), a p a r t of Alabama's which provides: "A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g the use of force d e s c r i b e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) , b u t t h e a g e n c y may not arrest the person for using force unless i t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e cause t h a t the f o r c e u s e d was u n l a w f u l . " (Emphasis added.) to the S e c t i o n 13A-3-23(e) i s v i r t u a l l y corresponding ground law, provision of the Florida § 7 7 6 . 0 3 2 ( 2 ) , F l a . S t a t . Ann., which identical stand-your- provides: "A law enforcement agency may use standard p r o c e d u r e s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e use o f f o r c e as d e s c r i b e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) , b u t t h e a g e n c y may not arrest the person for using force unless i t determines t h a t t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e cause t h a t the f o r c e t h a t was u s e d was u n l a w f u l . " A F l o r i d a c o m m e n t a t o r has explained that, " [ u ] n d e r s e c t i o n 776.032(2) of the F l o r i d a s t a t u t e s , the p o l i c e are f o r b i d d e n to a r r e s t or d e t a i n a suspect unless they have e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h a t t h e f o r c e u s e d was unlawful. Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e l a w r e q u i r e s s e l f - d e f e n s e c l a i m s t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d , an i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m i n g he o r she 17 2110147 a c t e d i n s e l f - d e f e n s e c a n n o t e v e n be a r r e s t e d u n l e s s t h e p o l i c e have e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p e r s o n ' s a c t i o n s do n o t f i t w i t h i n t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e s t a t u t e . " Zachary L. Weaver, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" A c t u a l E f f e c t s and t h e Need f o r C l a r i f i c a t i o n , Rev. 395, Section 409 (2008) 13A-3-23(e) Alabama d e c i s i o n , same way as interpreted, (emphasis has but, the not added; been assuming corresponding Skinner's footnote in omitted). a reported i t is interpreted Florida to believe Accordingly, the Skinner that Skinner used probable unlawful force. f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g elements of a f a l s e - i m p r i s o n m e n t survive is a r r e s t can be assumed t o have b e e n t h e Malicious Prosecution: to the provision r e s u l t o f an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t d e t e r m i n e d t h e r e was cause The 63 U. M i a m i L. discussed that Law: Bevans's malicious-prosecution claim. As p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , summary-judgment claim, Skinner was motion in as order to required to the present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i n d i c a t i n g " t h a t i n i n s t i t u t i n g the p r i o r proceeding malice." [Bevans] acted Wal-Mart S t o r e s , without cause I n c . v. Goodman, 789 I n W h i t l o w v. B r u n o ' s , I n c . , supreme c o u r t probable 567 stated: 18 So. 2d 1235 and with So. 2d a t 174. ( A l a . 1990), our 2110147 " I t i s almost p l a t i t u d i n o u s t o r e s t a t e the well-entrenched rule that i n malicious prosecution c a s e s t h e f i n d i n g o f an i n d i c t m e n t b y a g r a n d j u r y , against a defendant i n a p r i o r j u d i c i a l proceeding, c o n s t i t u t e s prima f a c i e evidence of the e x i s t e n c e of p r o b a b l e c a u s e . L u m p k i n v. T o f i e l d , 536 So. 2d 62 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . As f u r t h e r n o t e d i n L u m p k i n , h o w e v e r , ' [ s ] u c h a p r i m a f a c i e d e f e n s e c a n be overcome b y a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e i n d i c t m e n t "was i n d u c e d b y f r a u d , subornation, suppression of testimony, or other l i k e misconduct of the p a r t y seeking the indictment."' I d . a t 64 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . " 567 So. 2d a t 1237-38. evidence induced indicating, Skinner speculated, but presented that the grand-jury by f r a u d , s u b o r n a t i o n , indictment suppression no "'"was of testimony, or other l i k e misconduct of the p a r t y seeking the indictment,"'" Whitlow, 567 So. 2d a t 1238. Specifically, o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n , very seriously accurate account [that Bevans's grand-jury he s t a t e d , i n t h a t he "doubt[ed] testimony] o f t h e i n c i d e n t o f September 18, was an 2007." A c c o r d i n g l y , S k i n n e r f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g the elements o f a m a l i c i o u s - p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m . Defamation. Skinner a l l e g e d t h a t h i s r e p u t a t i o n as "a man o f p e a c e " h a d b e e n t a r n i s h e d b y t h e p u b l i c a t i o n f r o n t page o f t h e S o u t h A l a b a m a News o f an a r t i c l e his arrest. 19 on t h e concerning 2110147 "'The elements of a cause of action for d e f a m a t i o n a r e : 1) a f a l s e and d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t concerning the plaintiff; 2) an unprivileged c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f t h a t s t a t e m e n t t o a t h i r d p a r t y ; 3) f a u l t amounting at l e a s t to n e g l i g e n c e ; and 4) e i t h e r a c t i o n a b i l i t y of the statement i r r e s p e c t i v e o f s p e c i a l harm o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s p e c i a l harm c a u s e d by t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e statement.'" D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . Co. v. J o y Mfg. (Ala. 2d 1993) 875, 619 ( q u o t i n g M c C a i g v. T a l l a d e g a 877 concluded Co., (Ala. that, 1989)). because The the 2d 1280, Publ'g trial evidence So. Co., court 1289 544 So. ultimately indicated that the a r t i c l e had b e e n p u b l i s h e d no l a t e r t h a n O c t o b e r 19, 2007, b u t Skinner's 2011, c o u n t e r c l a i m had not any p o s s i b l e d e f a m a t i o n been f i l e d c l a i m was until January b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n § 6 - 2 - 3 8 ( k ) , A l a . Code 1975 actions for libel or slander the trial court must 20, be brought ("All within two years."). Although defamation see (Ala. c l a i m was Romar Dev. Co. v. erred i n determining a time-barred permissive G u l f V i e w Mgmt. C o r p . , 1994); 1 Lyons & H o w e l l , supra, § 13.11 that counterclaim, 644 So. 2d 462 a t 373, we may " a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t on any v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d p r e s e n t e d by t h e r e c o r d , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d was c o n s i d e r e d , o r e v e n i f i t was r e j e c t e d , by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . T h i s r u l e f a i l s i n a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y where d u e - p r o c e s s c o n s t r a i n t s r e q u i r e some 20 the 2110147 n o t i c e a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , w h i c h was o m i t t e d , o f t h e b a s i s t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e s u p p o r t an affirmance, s u c h as when a t o t a l l y o m i t t e d a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e might, i f a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s u f f i c e to a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t , o r where a summary-judgment movant has n o t a s s e r t e d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a f a i l u r e o f t h e nonmovant's e v i d e n c e on an e l e m e n t o f a c l a i m o r d e f e n s e and t h e r e f o r e has n o t s h i f t e d t h e burden of p r o d u c i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n support of t h a t element." Liberty Nat'l Life Servs. Found., (citations Ins. P.C., Co. v. 881 So. allegation whatsoever instigated the was charges." ... in the publication not merely Apparently, a 1013, 1020 (Ala. 2003) court noted that "there counterclaim said had listing failed allegedly defamatory statements s t a t u t o r y p r i v i l e g e f o r the 21 the to and that article, therefore, that the Skinner of arguments that 2d Health omitted). In i t s judgment, the t r i a l article U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama of or the court i s no [Bevans] that said arrests considered c o n n e c t Bevans t o had failed and the to e s t a b l i s h impartial reporting of 2110147 arrest reports, found i n 13A-11-161, A l a . Code 1975, 4 was inapplicable. Skinner d i d not a t t a c h the a l l e g e d l y defamatory article t o h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m o r s u b m i t t h e a r t i c l e as an e x h i b i t t o h i s m o t i o n o p p o s i n g B e v a n s ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n . no information regarding he allege either that the content Bevans p u b l i c a t i o n of the a r t i c l e the a r t i c l e . 4 He p r o v i d e d of the a r t i c l e , nor d i d had been instrumental i n the o r t h a t Bevans had been q u o t e d i n M o r e o v e r , as t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment i m p l i e s , S e c t i o n 13A-11-161, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "The p u b l i c a t i o n o f a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t of t h e r e t u r n o f any i n d i c t m e n t , t h e i s s u a n c e o f any w a r r a n t , t h e a r r e s t o f any p e r s o n f o r any cause o r the f i l i n g o f any a f f i d a v i t , pleading or other document i n a n y c r i m i n a l o r c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g i n a n y c o u r t , o r o f a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t o f t h e c o n t e n t s t h e r e o f , o r o f any c h a r g e o f c r i m e made t o any j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r o r b o d y , o r o f a n y r e p o r t o f any g r a n d j u r y , o r o f a n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n made b y a n y legislative c o m m i t t e e , o r o t h e r p u b l i c body o r o f f i c e r , s h a l l be p r i v i l e g e d , u n l e s s i t be p r o v e d t h a t t h e same was p u b l i s h e d w i t h a c t u a l m a l i c e , o r t h a t t h e defendant has r e f u s e d o r n e g l e c t e d t o p u b l i s h i n t h e same manner i n w h i c h t h e p u b l i c a t i o n complained o f appeared, a reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n o r c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h e r e o f by t h e p l a i n t i f f , o r t h a t t h e p u b l i s h e r h a s r e f u s e d upon t h e w r i t t e n r e q u e s t o f the plaintiff to publish the subsequent determination of such suit, action or investigation." 22 2110147 Skinner f a i l e d to present publication to meet was n o t p r i v i l e g e d . h i s burden defamation any e v i d e n c e of establishing the concluding elements on that his a t o decide whether the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d Skinner had waived counterclaims S k i n n e r was u n a b l e element entitled of Counterclaims the r i g h t alleging to a trespass, imprisonment, m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n , and d e f a m a t i o n . each failed claim. It i s unnecessary trial that the Accordingly, Skinner J u r y T r i a l on S k i n n e r ' s in indicating to of a summary four counterclaims], judgment, [and] a false Because t o "'produce s u f f i c i e n t evidence [those jury t o prove [Bevans] trial would is be u s e l e s s . ' " Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 769 So. 2d 903, 909 (Ala. 1999) ( q u o t i n g B e r n e r (Ala. 1989) ( H o u s t o n , remaining and a jury Skinner J . , concurring s p e c i a l l y ) ) . counterclaims "emotional demand v. C a l d w e l l , 543 So. 2d 686, 691 distress" a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y , negligence, we h o l d t h a t , b y f a i l i n g i n h i s amended d i d not waive As t o t h e answer his right claims. 23 on January to a jury trial t o make 20, 2 0 1 1 , on those 2110147 It sets for that " [ a ] n amended o r s u p p l e m e n t a l i n m o t i o n t h e 30-day p e r i o d new i s s u e s supra, 558 i s true f o r demanding a j u r y raised i n that pleading." § 38.6 a t 890. pleading 1 Lyons & trial Howell, I n Ex p a r t e T w i n t e c h I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , So. 2d 923 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d i s s u e s " as f o l l o w s : "A r e v i e w o f t h e c a s e s w h e r e i n t h i s C o u r t h a s f o u n d t h a t an amendment o r l a t e r p l e a d i n g r a i s e d a 'new i s s u e ' i n d i c a t e s t h a t a new i s s u e i s one o f an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t character from those already r a i s e d , o r one b a s e d on a s e t o f f a c t s d i f f e r e n t from those t h a t support the o r i g i n a l c l a i m s . I n Ex p a r t e R e y n o l d s , [447 So. 2d 701 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ] , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a d r a i s e d new l e g a l i s s u e s i n h i s amendment a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t h i s r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l on t h o s e i s s u e s h a d n o t b e e n w a i v e d . 447 So. 2d a t 703. I n t h a t c a s e , R e y n o l d s ' s o r i g i n a l complaint requested only equitable r e l i e f , w h e r e a s h i s amendment a d d e d a c l a i m f o r f r a u d . R e y n o l d s , a t 702-03. S i m i l a r l y , i n Ex p a r t e Town o f C i t r o n e l l e , 428 So. 2d 600 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t held that where the earlier pleadings had contemplated only equitable r e l i e f , a c r o s s - c l a i m f o r money damages r a i s e d a 'new i s s u e . ' 428 So. 2d a t 603. I n O l e S o u t h B l d g . S u p p l y C o r p . v . P i l g r i m , 425 So. 2d 1086 ( A l a . 1983), the plaintiff substituted a claim f o r fraud f o r h i s o r i g i n a l e q u i t a b l e c l a i m a n d t h u s became e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y t r i a l . 425 So. 2d a t 1087. F i n a l l y , i n M o b l e y v. M o o r e, 350 So. 2d 414 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t the t r i a l judge had not abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a r e q u e s t f o r a j u r y t r i a l when t h e t e n o r o f t h e a c t i o n was c h a n g e d f r o m one s e e k i n g e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f t o one s e e k i n g damages. 350 So. 2d 416-17." 24 "new 2110147 558 So. 2d at 925 (emphasis Cheshire, 55 So. 3d 923 husband's counterclaims added). See also Ex parte ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( h o l d i n g t h a t raising legal issues and seeking damages p r e s e n t e d i s s u e s o f a d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r t h a n divorce a c t i o n seeking equitable In the present assault case, and b a t t e r y , relief). Skinner's negligence, wife's counterclaims and "emotional alleging distress" p r e s e n t e d n e i t h e r i s s u e s o f "an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r " from those set r a i s e d b y B e v a n s n o r i s s u e s t h a t were " b a s e d on a of facts d i f f e r e n t from those assault-and-battery claim. t h a t s u p p o r t [ e d ] " Bevans's See T w i n t e c h , 558 So. 2d a t 925. Conclusion The summary j u d g m e n t s i n f a v o r o f B e v a n s as t o S k i n n e r ' s counterclaims a l l e g i n g t r e s p a s s , f a l s e imprisonment, m a l i c i o u s prosecution, entered and defamation on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t are affirmed. trial on complaint, Skinner h i s counterclaims n e g l i g e n c e , and " e m o t i o n a l judgment i n f a v o r o f Bevans i s r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e i s remanded f o r a new t r i a l . Bevans's The will have alleging On t h e r e t r i a l o f the r i g h t assault to a and b a t t e r y , distress." AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. 25 jury 2110147 Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 26 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.