Beem v. Newark Advocate
2017 Ohio 8174
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kimberly Beem was charged (Jan 2015) with six counts of telecommunications harassment; an Ohio BCI investigative report named communications involving Sheriff Randy Thorp and ex-Rep. Gerald Stebelton among others.
- The Newark Advocate published an article (Jan 26–29, 2015) reporting Beem was charged with harassing Thorp and Stebelton; an online commenter and a radio station (WCLT) also reported the identifications.
- WCLT later issued a correction clarifying the six charged counts related to other victims, not Thorp or Stebelton. Beem was later convicted on five counts; her criminal conviction was upheld on appeal.
- Beem filed a civil complaint (Jan 2016) asserting defamation against the Newark Advocate, its reporters/editors, Gannett, WCLT, individual broadcasters, and an online commenter.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants (July 15, 2016; Sept 7, 2016; Apr 12, 2017). Beem appealed raising recusal, perjury, and that summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of trial judge | Beem argued judge should have recused | Defendants implicitly: no reversible error shown; procedures required under R.C. §2701.03 not followed | Court: lacks jurisdiction to review recusal; Beem failed to invoke Supreme Court procedure; assignment overruled |
| Alleged perjury by defendants | Beem alleged multiple witnesses committed perjury | Defendants: plaintiff offered no evidence or legal support for allegations | Court: allegations were conclusory and unsupported; assignment overruled |
| Summary judgment on defamation | Beem contended dismissal was "absurd" and defendants defamed her by misidentifying victims | Defendants: showed no genuine issue of material fact; statements reflected investigatory reports and corrections; plaintiff offered no legal/evidentiary support | Court: summary judgment proper; Beem failed to cite law or evidence to oppose motions; assignment overruled |
| Publication and fault for defamatory statements | Beem argued publications and online commentors were liable | Defendants: published based on official investigative materials; some issued correction; lack of proof on falsity, injury, or requisite fault | Court: plaintiff did not develop arguments or evidence on elements of defamation; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (standard on genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440 (377 N.E.2d 775) (only Chief Justice may hear judicial disqualification matters)