Opinion ID: 1826657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Determination as a matter of law as to whether the defamatory statements involved a matter of public concern,

Text: Culpepper contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment as a matter of law because, he says, his statements about Cottrell involved matters of public concern and Cottrell did not present clear and convincing evidence of actual malice to establish a prima facie case of defamation. [W]here it is determined that a private individual is alleging defamation, there must be a determination of whether the defamatory speech involves a matter of public concern. Ex parte Rudder, 507 So.2d 411, 416 (Ala.1987). If the matter is of public concern, then the defamed private individual must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that [the statements were] false or with reckless disregard of whether [they] were false or not. Nelson v. Lapeyrouse Grain Corp., 534 So.2d 1085, 1095 (Ala.1988). The jury held that the following statements by Culpepper about Cottrell were defamatory: 1. That Cottrell stole funds from the Shaun Alexander Foundation; 2. That Cottrell and his assistant stole video tapes from The University's athletic department; and 3. That Cottrell had abandoned his family in Tallahassee. With regard to Culpepper's statement that Cottrell stole funds from the Shaun Alexander Foundation, we conclude that this statement does not involve a matter of public concern. In Nelson, 534 So.2d at 1096, this Court held that a theft by an employee from a private company was not a matter of public concern. Similarly, we conclude that a theft by an individual from a foundation is not a matter of public concern. Theft of property from a private company or foundation does not involve a threat to public safety, a theft of public funds, or an abuse of public trust; therefore, statements made about thefts from private entities are not matters of public concern. Cf. Ex parte Rudder (holding abusive prescription-drug practices involved matter of public concern); Silvester (holding jai alai industry a matter of public concern); Rosanova (holding organized crime matter of public concern). Thus, because Culpepper's statement that Cottrell stole funds from the Shaun Alexander Foundation did not involve a threat to public safety or a misuse of public property or trust, the trial court did not err in denying Culpepper's motion for a judgment as a matter of law with regard to that statement. [13] Likewise, the trial court did not err in denying Culpepper's motion for a judgment as a matter of law with regard to Culpepper's contention that his statement that Cottrell had abandoned his family involved a matter of public concern. This general statement does not suggest a threat to public safety, public funding, or public trust; therefore, the statement does not involve a matter of public concern. [14] Finally, the trial court did not err in denying Culpepper's motion for a judgment as a matter of law with regard to his statement that Cottrell stole videotapes from The University's athletic department. Culpepper argues that the trial court erred in holding that his statement that Cottrell stole videotapes from The University's athletic department did not involve a matter of public concern. We agree. Cottrell was an employee of The University's athletic department. The videotapes were the property of The University's athletic department. The athletic department is a department within The University. The University is a public institution, governed by a board of trustees appointed by the Governor of Alabama and approved by the legislature, and funded by the citizens of Alabama. Because this statement involved a theft from a public institution by' an employee of the institution, this statement involved a matter of public concern. Thus, the trial court erred in holding that the statement was not a matter of public concern. Because Culpepper's statement that Cottrell stole videotapes from The University's athletic department involved a matter of public concern., Cottrell must present clear and convincing evidence of actual malice to satisfy his burden of proof for his defamation claim based on that statement to be submitted to the jury. Culpepper contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment as a matter of law because, he says, Cottrell did not present clear and convincing evidence of actual malice with regard to this statement. According to Culpepper, Cottrell's evidence did not establish that he made the statement with reckless disregard as to whether the statement was false or not. The evidence, however, established that in October 2000, Cottrell, in the presence of others, met with Culpepper and asked him to stop making statements that impacted his reputation. Culpepper made the statement at issue after December 2000. Viewed in a light most favorable to Cottrell, the evidence created a jury question as to Culpepper's state of mind when he made the false statements. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Culpepper's motion for a judgment as a matter of law in this regard.