HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has reversed an order of summary judgment granted to Dollar General and its store cashier, in the case of a man who alleged he was falsely arrested and imprisoned after he challenged the amount of change he received.
On Feb. 21, 2017, Braswell said he was shopping at the Dollar General store on Street Road in Bensalem and after picking up a bag of cat food, went to the cashier, defendant Melody Wollard, and gave her a $20 bill to pay for the cat food. The bag of cat food cost $6.99 and thus, Braswell states he was due change of $13.01.
However, Braswell said Wollard gave him only $3.01 worth of change and after a subsequent dispute over the money he was due to be returned, Wollard was said to have used a racial epithet to Braswell, a Black man, and called the police.
As a result, Braswell was arrested and charged with robbery and theft, but after four months of incarceration, the District Attorney withdrew all charges against Braswell on June 23, 2017.
Braswell then filed suit on March 28, 2018 against Wollard and Dollar General, contending Wollard knowingly made a false accusation to police, which resulted in his arrest and imprisonment.
However, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Abbe F. Fletman granted summary judgment to the defendants on July 30, 2019.
“While the details about the altercation between Wollard and Braswell are certainly in dispute, there is no evidence of record from which a jury could infer that Wollard’s statement to Officer Hayden was knowingly false, or that Wollard’s desire to have criminal proceedings initiated against Braswell was the determining factor in Officer Hayden’s decision to begin criminal proceedings against Braswell,” Fletman said.
Despite noting that Wollard admitted in her deposition for the civil case that she had likely made a mistake when ringing up Braswell’s purchase, the finding of summary judgment stuck.
Braswell summarily appealed to the Superior Court, which ruled on the matter on Dec. 9.
“In this case, the trial court found that there was no evidence from which a jury could conclude that Wollard acted with malice by relaying information to police she knew to be false,” Superior Court Judge Dan Pellegrini said.
“The trial court also ruled that police would have had probable cause to arrest Braswell regardless of whether Wollard intentionally made false allegations. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Braswell, we conclude that the trial court erred as to both of those elements.”
Pellegrini added that by “correctly acknowledging that Wollard could have been mistaken when she reported a robbery but rejecting Braswell’s circumstantial evidence that Wollard knowingly made a false accusation, the trial court erroneously resolved an issue of credibility, which is the sole province of the jury.”
“There is sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Wollard’s statements to police were knowingly false and, therefore, a determinative factor in the police’s decision to arrest Braswell,” Pellegrini stated.
“Thus, we are compelled to reverse the portions of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment as to Braswell’s claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment. The order is affirmed in all other respects.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 2589 EDA 2019
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 180303384
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com