Opinion ID: 1826657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Culpepper's motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

Text: 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 that Culpepper made the statements with actual malice. Because we have concluded that Cottrell is a private person with regard to the statements made by Culpepper and did not have to present evidence of actual malice to establish a prima face case of defamation, this issue is moot. To the extent that Culpepper argues that the evidence does not support an award of punitive damages, we conclude that Cottrell presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether Culpepper made the statements with actual malice. Although a failure to investigate alone does not indicate actual malice, evidence indicating the purposeful avoidance of the truth is sufficient to meet the standard of constitutional malice. Connaughton, 491 U.S. at 692, 109 S.Ct. 2678. Culpepper admitted that he made the statements with no knowledge of whether the statements were true. Additionally, the evidence established that even though Cottrell had met with Culpepper in October 2000 to discourage Culpepper from making statements about him, Culpepper made these statements after December 2000. Therefore, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Cottrell, we conclude that he presented sufficient evidence to present a jury question as to whether Culpepper made the statements with actual malice.