Reported / Citable
Background
Brinda Redwine was married to Ricky Thomas, whose brother Kipp Allen Thomas claimed co-ownership of a hay-growing operation. After Ricky died in 2023, a neighbor named Willd Kujawa visited the property on behalf of Redwine to purchase hay from Ricky’s estate. Kujawa witnessed Redwine remove a tractor key, a hammer, two pairs of pliers, and a piece of chain from a John Deere tractor that Thomas claimed to own, and he later told Thomas what he had seen. Thomas reported the alleged theft to the Navarro County Sheriff’s Office, explaining that he had received Kujawa’s eyewitness account and that Redwine had taken property belonging to him without consent. Redwine was arrested and tried for theft, but the jury acquitted her.
Redwine then filed a malicious prosecution suit against Thomas, alleging he had no probable cause and acted with malice when he reported the theft. Thomas moved for traditional summary judgment, submitting his own affidavit and an affidavit from Kujawa. The trial court in Navarro County granted summary judgment in Thomas’s favor, and Redwine appealed raising four issues, including a claim that her constitutional rights had been violated.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Smith, writing for a unanimous panel (Johnson, C.J., Smith, J., and Harris, J.), affirmed. To succeed on a malicious prosecution claim in Texas, a plaintiff must prove, among other elements, that the defendant lacked probable cause to initiate the prosecution and that the defendant acted with malice — defined as ill will, evil motive, gross indifference, or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. Kroger Texas Ltd. P’ship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006). A plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case carries the burden of disproving probable cause, because a presumption exists that the defendant acted reasonably. Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex. 1997). Probable cause is assessed from the perspective of the reporting party at the time the report was made — the question is whether a reasonable person, with the facts the complainant honestly and reasonably believed at the time, would have concluded that a crime had been committed.
Thomas’s summary judgment evidence established that he received a first-hand eyewitness account from Kujawa before contacting law enforcement, and that he filed the police report to retrieve his property rather than to harm Redwine. The court held this evidence conclusively demonstrated probable cause and negated malice. Redwine’s summary judgment response described a decades-long contentious relationship with Thomas and accused him of misappropriating property from Ricky’s estate — but none of that evidence addressed whether it was objectively reasonable for Thomas to believe Redwine had stolen his property based on Kujawa’s eyewitness account. Without evidence directly addressing the reasonableness of Thomas’s belief at the time of the report, Redwine could not raise a genuine fact issue on probable cause. Because probable cause was conclusively established, malice could not be implied from its absence, and Thomas’s uncontroverted affidavit negating malice was dispositive. The court also noted that Redwine’s brief listed a constitutional issue in the issues-presented section without providing any supporting argument, rendering it waived under Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i).
Key Takeaways
- In a Texas malicious prosecution case, the plaintiff bears the burden of disproving probable cause; to rebut the presumption that the defendant acted reasonably, the plaintiff must produce evidence that the information the defendant actually relied upon did not support a reasonable belief that a crime was committed — evidence of general animosity or motive alone is insufficient.
- Probable cause is evaluated at the time of the police report, from the perspective of the complainant; events that occurred after the report, or the plaintiff’s characterization of the parties’ broader relationship, do not retroactively undermine probable cause that existed when the report was filed.
- An unrebutted eyewitness account corroborating the reported theft can conclusively establish probable cause and negate malice at the summary judgment stage, even if the criminal prosecution ultimately ends in an acquittal.
- Once probable cause is conclusively established, malice cannot be inferred from its absence; a plaintiff must then affirmatively demonstrate ill will, evil motive, gross indifference, or reckless disregard — evidence of a contentious relationship, standing alone, does not satisfy this burden.
Why It Matters
Redwine v. Thomas illustrates how Texas courts evaluate malicious prosecution claims at summary judgment when the defendant submits affidavit evidence of the factual basis for a police report. The decision confirms that an eyewitness statement — even from a witness who is an acquaintance of the defendant — is sufficient to conclusively negate the probable cause element, and that the plaintiff must respond with evidence directly attacking the reasonableness of the defendant’s reliance on that account, not merely evidence of bad blood between the parties.
For defense counsel in malicious prosecution cases, the opinion underscores the importance of affidavit evidence tying the defendant’s police report to a specific, contemporaneous factual basis. For plaintiff’s counsel, the case clarifies that demonstrating a contentious relationship or conflicting interests between the parties will not, without more, survive a well-supported summary judgment motion; the plaintiff must produce evidence that the particular belief the defendant claims to have held was not objectively reasonable at the time the report was made. The case also serves as a routine reminder that constitutional issues raised in the issues-presented section of an appellate brief but not argued in the body of the brief are waived under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i).