331 A.3d 1093
Vt.2024Background
- Draxxion Talandar sued Elizabeth Manchester-Murphy for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), alleging she made maliciously false police reports of sexual and physical assault, leading to his criminal charges and almost two years of pretrial detention before being acquitted.
- Manchester-Murphy moved to strike the complaint under Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute and also sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing her statements to police were absolutely privileged as witness communications in anticipation of a judicial proceeding.
- The trial court granted both motions: it found the police report absolutely privileged and struck the suit under the anti-SLAPP statute, awarding defendant attorney’s fees.
- Talandar appealed, challenging both the application of the absolute privilege and the anti-SLAPP ruling.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed that the police report was absolutely privileged and upheld dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute, but remanded for the trial court to consider Talandar’s unaddressed constitutional challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absolute privilege protects witness’s police report from civil suit | Only qualified privilege should apply to pre-prosecution statements to police | Police reports anticipating judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged | Absolutely privileged; bars both defamation and IIED claims |
| Applicability of absolute privilege to IIED claims | IIED is not subject to defamation privilege rules | Privilege should bar all civil liability from same facts | Privilege bars alternate tort claims (like IIED) arising from the same conduct |
| Constitutionality of denying civil recourse (Vt. Const. Art. 4) | Absolute privilege violates the right to a remedy/ due process | No such constitutional right to specific remedies when privilege serves public good | Argument inadequately briefed; not reached |
| Application and scope of anti-SLAPP statute | Statute should not bar claims based on malicious falsehoods; required evidentiary hearing | Conduct falls within protected petitioning activity; process need not be evidentiary | Anti-SLAPP applies; no evidentiary hearing required; remanded to hear constitutional challenge to the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Couture v. Trainer, 205 Vt. 319 (Vt. 2017) (affirmed absolute privilege for certain witness statements made preliminary to judicial proceedings)
- LaPlaca v. Lowery, 134 Vt. 56 (Vt. 1975) (absolute privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings)
- Ryan v. Orient Ins. Co., 96 Vt. 291 (Vt. 1923) (public policy favors the reporting of crime)
- Torrey v. Field, 10 Vt. 353 (Vt. 1838) (absolute privilege attaches to certain participants in administration of justice)