Court Opinion

ID: 9848937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:30:28.39362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:54.724173
License: Public Domain

KALITOWSKI, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part)
Because both the law and the evidence presented to the jury support the jury’s determination that all three of the statements at issue were not defamatory, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion that concludes appellant is entitled to a new trial.
I.
I concur with the conclusion that the first two alleged defamatory statements are not reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning. But I also conclude that in the context of the entire broadcast, as a matter of law, the third statement is also not capable of defamatory meaning. See Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 390 N.W.2d 437, 443 (Minn.App.1986) (“The defamatory character of any particular statement must be construed in the context of the article as a whole.” (citation omitted)).
Importantly, the majority of the broadcast at issue reported the official police version that the shooting was justified self-defense. The three alleged defamatory statements constituted a small part of the broadcast and at most permissibly raised questions concerning police accounts of a fatal shooting. See Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1093-94 (4th Cir.1993) (public officials must tolerate scrutiny of their activities). Moreover, the third alleged defamatory sentence was preceded by a police captain explaining why the officer had to shoot, and was immediately followed by (1) the reporter stating, “Police say that’s not what witnesses told them”; (2) a quote by the Chief of Police that “[tjhere was no discrepancy in those [witnesses’] accounts last night”; and (3) a statement by the reporter concluding the broadcast by stating that “Chief O’Keefe says, based on what he knows at this point, *310he is comfortable with Officer Schlieman’s actions.” Because this case involves a media defendant inquiring into the conduct of a public official, the First Amendment mandates that the press be given “breathing space” essential to its exercise of freedoms of speech and press. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). Thus, I conclude that in the context of the entire broadcast respondents’ statements are not capable of defamatory meaning.
In addition, because this case involves a public official and a media defendant, appellant was required to establish actual malice to prevail on his defamation claim. Although this issue was not presented to the district court, whether evidence in the record “is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law [based] on the unique character of the interest protected by the actual malice standard.” Diesen v. Hessburg, 455 N.W.2d 446, 453-54 (Minn.1990) (quotation omitted).
Here, the record indicates that: (1) the majority of the broadcast at issue presented appellant’s version of the events; (2) the reporter testified at trial that an eyewitness told him “specifically that Kevin wasn’t being aggressive”; (3) a second employee of respondent testified at trial that the same eyewitness said “the victim was just standing there in a non-aggressive manner when the officer shot him”; and (4) the reporter testified that he had not intended to accuse appellant of any wrongdoing and respondent’s executive producer testified that respondent knew how to make such an accusation if that had been its intention. On this record, I conclude that as a matter of law no jury could find that appellant has met his burden of proving actual malice. Since appellant has had his day in court, in the interest of judicial economy, he should not be granted another trial.
II.
In addition to affirming the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial as a matter of law, I would also affirm the district court because: (1) the instruction regarding defamation by implication was not reversible error; and (2) there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict that the statements at issue were not defamatory.
Regarding the allegedly erroneous jury instruction, it is important to note first that there was no evidence that the jury was confused or improperly influenced by the instruction on defamation by implication. Moreover, although appellant argued that the instruction was unnecessary and should not be given, appellant requested that if the instruction were given: (1) it should be based on the language of CIVJIG 50-10; and (2) the instruction should be given immediately after the court gave the jury the definition of defamatory communication. Thus, appellant specifically asked the district court to take the actions that the majority concludes constituted reversible error. See State v. Adams, 251 Minn. 521, 548, 89 N.W.2d 661, 679 (1957) (stating a party cannot complain of errors that the party sought or helped create) (On Rehearing).
I would also affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial because there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The jury was presented with the broadcast and a transcript of the broadcast. Thus, as discussed above, the jury could observe that the majority of the broadcast reported the police version of events and only a few lines reported that there was conflicting information as to whether the victim was aggressive. The jury also heard the testimony of respondent’s employees regarding both their efforts to reconcile what they *311considered to be conflicting information and their intent in airing the broadcast. Finally, the jury was properly instructed concerning the definition of a defamatory communication and was therefore able to assess the minimal evidence appellant presented establishing the necessary element that the communication must have either harmed his reputation in the community, injured his character, or subjected him to ridicule, contempt, or distrust.
A jury verdict will only be disturbed if it is manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence. Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 256 (Minn.1980). Here, because the evidence at trial overwhelmingly supports the jury’s verdict, I would affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a new trial.