The opinion
Judge WEBB
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I dissent because I believe it was error for the court to instruct the jury they could not consider the grand jury’s return of true bills of indictment as evidence of probable cause. The cases cited by the majority hold that such evidence is admissible. The majority opinion distinguished these cases on the ground that the tort was complete when the indictments were returned. I believe this is a distinction without a difference.
*61 Evidence that a grand jury has returned a true bill is some evidence that a reasonable man would have commenced a prosecution. I do not see why it makes a difference that the grand jury did not act until after the tort was complete.
I concur in the holding that there was not sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages.