Opinion ID: 4471845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In his second issue, Farley maintains Parson failed to prove the disparaging allegations in Farley’s letter—that Parson was hooked on drugs, cheated on his wife, and lied under oath—were false. He contends that Parson’s witnesses only knew him as “a good guy,” but did not “know him in 1970 or w[ere] to[o] young to recall, or [were] lying under oath.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 8. However, Farley only provides conclusions that the disparaging allegations were true. He says the “entire Farley family knew” Parson was “hooked on drugs,” Parson previously admitted to Farley that he cheated on his wife, and Parson “was caught in two lies while on the witness 10 stand” in the probate case. Id. Farley complains Parson did not call his wife to testify even though she was on the witness list. He adds that Parson presented no evidence of damages. For this court to reverse a jury verdict, a party must show “the evidence points but one way and is not susceptible to any reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” Zia Shadows, L.L.C. v. City of Las Cruces, 829 F.3d 1232, 1247 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Farley’s arguments do not come close to meeting this standard. Although he attempted to impeach witnesses who testified Parson was not hooked on drugs, had not cheated on his wife, and had not lied under oath, the jury was charged with weighing the evidence, determining the witnesses’ credibility, and drawing factual conclusions. We may not reassess those determinations. Rocky Mtn. Christian Church v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 613 F.3d 1229, 1235-36 (10th Cir. 2010). And Farley presented no evidence in his case in chief touching on the truth or falsity of the disparaging allegations. Moreover, Parson presented testimony that Farley acted with actual malice by not independently investigating the allegations regarding Parson’s alleged drug use, unfaithfulness, and perjury. As for damages, Oklahoma law permits an award of compensatory damages arising from defamation based not only on financial loss, but also on “impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.” Martin v. Griffin Television, Inc., 549 P.2d 85, 93 (Okla. 1976). Oklahoma law also permits damages for reputational harm arising from false light 11 invasion of privacy. See OUJI-CIV Instr. No. 28.16 (Nov. 2014 Supp.), Committee Comments (“One who is publicly placed in a false light . . . may recover damages for the harm to his reputation from the position in which he is placed.”); Mitchell v. Griffin Television, L.L.C., 60 P.3d 1058, 1064, 1066 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002) (applying Martin’s rule in a case involving defamation and false light claims). Parson presented evidence of harm to his reputation in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish. This evidence sufficiently supported the award of compensatory damages.