149 Conn. App. 283
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Madeleine Gleason (plaintiff) is a school bus driver who dated Bill Smolinski, who disappeared in 2004. Bill is the son of Janice Smolinski and brother of Paula Bell (defendants).
- After Bill’s disappearance the Smolinskis posted many missing-person posters; the plaintiff was repeatedly targeted where she lived, worked, and on her bus route, and the defendants followed and confronted her.
- Plaintiff sued alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), defamation, invasion of privacy, and related torts; the court dismissed some third-party claims and proceeded against Janice Smolinski and Paula Bell.
- The trial court found the defendants liable for IIED and defamation, awarded $32,000 (IIED) and $7,500 (defamation) compensatory damages, plus punitive damages equal to one‑third of total compensatory damages; defendants appealed.
- On appeal defendants raised six main contentions: First Amendment protection for their conduct; judicial bias; reliance on hearsay; insufficiency of evidence for IIED; insufficiency of evidence for defamation; and error in damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment/free speech: Were defendants’ poster and related acts protected speech about a public concern? | Gleason: conduct targeted her personally and was not public‑concern speech; thus First Amendment defense fails. | Smolinski/Bell: posters sought info about a missing person and concerned public interest, so speech is protected. | Court: Not protected — context and placement targeted Gleason specifically; First Amendment defense fails. |
| Judicial bias: Did the trial judge exhibit disqualifying bias or commit plain error? | Gleason: defendants failed to move for disqualification; record does not show bias. | Defendants: judge made prejudicial statements, admitted hearsay, excluded defense evidence, and held in‑chambers hearings. | Court: No disqualifying bias; contested remark was a transcript error or plaintiff’s counsel; rulings within discretion. |
| Hearsay/admissibility: Did the court improperly rely on hearsay (police reports, articles, statements) to find intent and motive? | Gleason: alleged hearsay was either introduced by defendants, admitted without objection, or contained admissions; reliance proper. | Defendants: key findings rest on inadmissible hearsay and should be excluded. | Court: Evidence was either admitted, not objected to, or contained defendants’ admissions; no reversible evidentiary error. |
| IIED, defamation and damages: Was there sufficient evidence on intent, causation, severity, defamation elements, malice, and damages? | Gleason: testimony and circumstantial evidence showed targeted, extreme conduct causing severe distress; defamatory statements (accusations of murder) were made with actual malice; damages appropriately awarded. | Defendants: plaintiff lacked expert proof of causation/severity; statements were opinion/hearsay; damages unexplained and excessive. | Court: Findings supported by record; expert testimony not required for emotional distress; statements were actionable factual accusations (per se) made with reckless disregard; damages and punitive award within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golding v. State, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standard for raising unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) (framework for public‑concern speech and First Amendment protection)
- Watts v. Chittenden, 301 Conn. 575 (2011) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chemical Co., 267 Conn. 210 (2003) (elements of defamation and requirement to prove publication and reputational injury)