In Baldonado v. Tackett, 6th Dist. No. WD-07-028, 2007 Ohio 6879, this court observed: "With respect to whether a prosecution has been terminated in favor of the accused, many courts rather loosely characterize this as a determination made as a matter of law. In reality, such a determination must still be premised on the facts presented. It is just that in most cases the record from the prosecution inevitably leads to one conclusion or another. If a defendant is convicted, he or she has not had the prosecution terminated in his favor. If the defendant is acquitted, this is unquestionably a favorable outcome. "Less clear cut is when there is an indecisive termination of the proceedings which occurs when a charge is withdrawn. When a charge is withdrawn, we look to see whether the withdrawal is inconsistent with guilt. 'The abandonment of the proceedings because the accuser believes that the accused is innocent or that conviction has, in the natural course of events, become impossible or improbable, is sufficient termination in favor of the accused.' Restatement of the Law, 2d, Torts (1977), 420, Section 660, Comment d. Alternatively, where a charge is withdrawn because new proceedings for the same offense have been instituted, the misconduct of the accused prevents a proper trial, mercy is requested or accepted by the accused, or there is an agreement of compromise, termination is not in favor the accused. Id. at 419-420, Section 660(a)(d)." Id., P 29-30.