Smith v. Durden
1 N.M. Ct. App. 566
N.M.2012Background
- Smith, a former priest, sued Durden and DeVries, parish vestry members and parish members, for defamation arising from a packet of documents including an anonymous pedophilia allegation.
- The packet was compiled for a Diocese Standing Committee meeting and later summarized to the congregation by Smith.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Smith failed to show actual injury to reputation; no employment harm or suspension occurred.
- The Court of Appeals held that mental anguish and humiliation could constitute actual injury to reputation, contrary to NM law requiring actual injury to reputation.
- This Court granted review to determine whether New Mexico requires injury to reputation to establish defamation liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is injury to reputation required for defamation liability in NM? | Smith contends mental anguish suffices under UJI 13-1010 for actual injury. | Durden/DeVries argue NM law allows injury-centric proof, not solely mental distress. | Yes; actual injury to reputation is required. |
| Does UJI 13-1002(B)(8) properly require actual injury to reputation? | Smith asserts evidence of humiliation satisfies actual injury. | Defendants maintain the prima facie case requires proven reputational injury. | The prima facie case requires actual injury to reputation. |
| Are damages for mental anguish permissible without reputational injury in NM defamation cases? | Smith suggests damages for mental distress are recoverable without reputational injury. | Defendants argue damages must be tied to proven reputational injury. | Damages for mental anguish require established reputational injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. Supreme Court (1974)) (state may define liability standard for private figures; no presumed damages without fault)
- Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 108 N.M. 424, 773 P.2d 1231 (N.M. Supreme Court (1989)) (abolished distinguishable per se/per quod damages; require actual injury)
- Firestone, Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. Supreme Court (1976)) (allowed recovery for mental anguish without reputational injury in some contexts; dissents critique this)
- Marchiondo II (Marchiondo v. Brown, 98 N.M. 394, 649 P.2d 462 (N.M. Supreme Court (1982)) (rejected strict liability; adopted ordinary negligence; required actual injury framework)
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (U.S. Supreme Court (1985)) (privates/private concern: permitted presumed damages absent actual malice varies by context)
- Fikes v. Furst, 134 N.M. 602, 81 P.3d 545 (N.M. Supreme Court (2003)) (reaffirmed injury-to-reputation focus in NM defamation elements)
- Zeran v. Diamond Broad., Inc., 203 F.3d 714 (10th Cir. (2000)) (distinguishes defamation from false light; reputational injury focus)
- Gobin v. Globe Publ'g Co., 232 Kan. 1, 649 P.2d 1239 (Kan. Supreme Court (1982)) (reputation injury essential in defamation)