## Facts

- Daniel International Corporation managed construction of a nuclear power plant site where Union Electric owned the tools and Daniel controlled their issuance and storage.
- Tools were assigned through individual and crew “gang boxes” and could be checked out from a central tool room; theft and hoarding were recurring problems and warnings stated offenders would be prosecuted.
- A day-shift crew discovered its gang box had been broken into; the lock had been cut with bolt cutters.
- Investigation indicated a night-shift crew member had checked out bolt cutters the prior night; security and management inspected the night crew’s gang boxes and reviewed tool identifiers and employee statements.
- Daniel’s agents concluded that several night-shift workers, including Robert Sanders, were connected to an attempted theft of tools and gauges valued over the misdemeanor threshold.
- After Daniel’s agents conferred with the county prosecutor, the prosecutor swore to and filed misdemeanor attempted-theft charges against Sanders and six others.
- The prosecutor later dismissed the criminal case due to perceived insufficient evidence to proceed.
- Sanders sued Daniel for malicious prosecution; a jury awarded $100,000 actual damages and $250,000 punitive damages, and the appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. In a malicious prosecution action arising from a prior criminal proceeding, must the plaintiff prove “actual malice” (improper motive), or is “malice in law” (intentional wrongful act without just cause or excuse) sufficient?
2. Whether the trial court’s jury instruction defining malice using a “malice in law” formulation misstated the law and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded.
- The court held that malicious prosecution claims based on prior criminal proceedings require proof of actual malice, not merely malice in law.
- The court found the malice instruction erroneous because it permitted liability without requiring a finding of improper motive, creating prejudicial instructional error.

## Legal Principles

- A malicious prosecution plaintiff must prove: initiation of a prosecution, defendant’s legal causation, favorable termination, lack of probable cause, malice, and damages.
- For malicious prosecution grounded in a prior criminal case, “malice” means actual malice—an improper motive such as ill will, spite, or a primary purpose other than bringing an offender to justice.
- “Malice in law” (an intentional wrongful act without just cause or excuse) is not an adequate substitute for actual malice in criminal-proceeding malicious prosecution claims.
- Jury instructions must preserve the distinction between lack of probable cause and actual malice; allowing malice to be inferred from a merely wrongful act lowers the required showing and is reversible error.
- A prosecutor’s decision to file charges after consultation with a private complainant, and a later dismissal for insufficient evidence, do not by themselves establish actual malice by the complainant.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the plaintiff’s verdict because the jury was allowed to find malice under an improper “malice in law” standard; in malicious prosecution actions based on criminal charges, Missouri requires proof of actual malice, and the case was remanded for proceedings using correct instructions.


Sanders v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 682 S.W.2d 803 (Mo. 1984) (en banc)