## Facts

- Victor W. Dahar owned Manchester commercial property leased to American Snacks, Inc.; a 1973 tax abatement was granted and the city issued the abatement check to Dahar as record owner.
- In 1975, American Snacks sued Dahar, claiming he wrongfully converted the abatement check.
- In defending that civil suit, Dahar made statements to counsel and in pleadings asserting the abatement was unlawfully granted and implying John F. McGranahan, chair of the city Board of Assessors, had improperly granted an abatement in which he had a financial interest.
- McGranahan was not a party to the American Snacks litigation.
- Dahar also discussed his suspicions with Manchester police and the city prosecutor; McGranahan was arrested and charged with official oppression.
- Dahar testified for the State at McGranahan’s criminal trial; the trial received media coverage and McGranahan was acquitted.
- After acquittal, McGranahan sued Dahar for libel, slander, and “malicious use of process,” among other labels; the amended pleading repeated the same allegations in multiple counts.
- Dahar moved to dismiss, asserting absolute privilege for the complained-of statements and conduct connected to judicial proceedings.
- The trial court denied dismissal; the case was transferred for interlocutory review.

## Issues

1. Whether statements about McGranahan made in pleadings and attorney communications in related civil litigation were absolutely privileged, barring defamation claims.
2. Whether communications to police and prosecutors concerning suspected misconduct, connected to contemplated or pending criminal proceedings, were absolutely privileged.
3. Whether in-court testimony as a witness for the State was absolutely privileged against civil tort claims.
4. Whether a claim styled as “malicious use of process” could proceed when predicated on the same privileged participation in judicial proceedings.

## Decision

- The court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss and ordered dismissal of the action.
- Dahar’s statements in pleadings and related litigation communications were absolutely privileged because they were made in the course of judicial proceedings and related to the matters in controversy.
- Dahar’s communications with police and the prosecutor were absolutely privileged as communications preliminary to contemplated judicial proceedings and sufficiently related to them.
- Dahar’s trial testimony was absolutely privileged under the witness privilege.
- The “malicious use of process” theory did not avoid the privilege where the alleged wrongs consisted of privileged statements and participation in judicial proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Participants in judicial proceedings (including parties, attorneys, and witnesses) are absolutely immune from civil liability for defamatory statements made in the course of the proceeding if the statements are relevant or have some relation to it.
- Absolute privilege is not defeated by allegations that statements were false, made with malice, or made with knowledge of falsity.
- Absolute privilege extends to certain communications preliminary to proposed or contemplated judicial proceedings when made in good faith and under serious consideration, and when the communication relates to the anticipated proceeding.
- A plaintiff may not reframe a claim (e.g., as “malicious use of process”) to impose liability for conduct that is substantively privileged participation in judicial proceedings.

## Conclusion

Because the challenged pleadings, related litigation communications, reports to law-enforcement officials tied to contemplated proceedings, and in-court testimony were all absolutely privileged, the plaintiff’s defamation and related tort claims were barred and the action was dismissed.


McGranahan v. Dahar, 408 A.2d 121 (N.H. 1979)