*3 MURPHY, Before WOLLMAN Evidence at trial indicated that the rela- GRITZNER,1 Judges, and District Circuit tionship between Gilbert and his sisters Judge. had years. deteriorated over the Gilbert MURPHY, Judge. Circuit suffered from renal long failure for a time kidney and needed two transplants. He brought by This action was defamation had asked his to consider donating sisters *4 Suggs against Dorothy Stanley Kathleen a kidney before each transplant operation, Betty Hendricks, and sisters of her and there was a conflict in the evidence in companion. jury deceased ruled they about whether were if tested to see appeal and the sisters from Suggs, favor they qualify could as donors. contending Suggs testi- judgment, the district they fied that by denying court2 erred their motion for had not returned Gilbert’s a that it judgment сalls, as matter of law and phone and they acknowledged on improperly admitted certain evidence. they cross examination that spo- had not Suggs appeal filed a cross based on her ken to their brother for years some ten attempt unsuccessful to assert a claim for after he talked to them about his need for intentional infliction of emotional distress. aunt, transplant. lawyer, Gilbert’s We affirm. neighbor and his also testified that sisters and Gilbert had estranged. become
I. Dorothy Stanley guardianship obtained Dorothy Stanley Betty and Hendricks person over the and in assets of Mamie brother, Wicker, had one Gilbert who was power attorney, as well as and involved in a romantic with relationship Stamps movеd her mother from to Shreve- Suggs approximately Kathleen for twelve Louisiana, port, -Dorothy where she lived. years prior to his death. The father of the also sued to recover the properties in siblings three died and the next Mamie had turned over to Gilbert. mother, Wicker, year their Mamie trans- complaint Dorothy alleged that her mother property ferred to Gilbert which she had incompetent signed had been when she inherited from her husband. The property property over the because she had been included a deposit certificate of for drugged Suggs her doctor and Gilbert. $10,000, savings account of about contends Mamie chose to transfer her $25,000, in Stamps, and house Arkansas. to in property prevent Gilbert order to Both the certificate of deposit and the Dorothy Betty from squandering and in savings payable account were to Mamie leaving adequate Mamie without finan- death, the event of con- Gilbert’s and she support, tinued to in Af- cial and Gilbert’s aunt testified Stamps. five the home ter the transfer in supported Dorothy’s Gilbert executed a that she had not law- Gritzner, Howard, Jr., George 1. The Honorable James E. United The Honorable United Judge Judge States District for the Southern District States District Eastern District Iowa, sitting by designation. of Arkansas. worry because of about what Dorothy’s phone suit would called cell happen property given the costs told her that the house was secure and the guardianship.3 incurred sisters did not need come to Little Rock, Dorothy replied they but were Dorothy’s At the time lawsuit was already underway. Suggs Dorothy told served, hospitalized Gilbert because gone by they she would be the time kidney transplant his second was failing. house, locking up arrived. Before pleading, He did not file a but responsive Suggs removed the most valuable items 28, 1999, May attorney on he told his personal and Gilbert’s records for use aup leaving property draw new will all his administering his estate. then She went naming her as his executrix. neighbor’s over to the Mamie was not house. mentioned the new will. 2, 1999, July Oh Gilbert was found dead. After Dorothy received the call from Suggs testified that she discovered Gil- Suggs, a call was on placed Betty’s cell body bert’s after she had been unable to рhone to the Little Rock Police Depart- reach him phone on the and went to his Although deny ment. report- the sisters house check on him. After she found house, ing Suggs was in dead, him she called the Little Rock admit that may one of them have inquired who went to the house and started an as to whether it appropriate for Gil- *5 investigation. They Dorothy contacted as girlfriend bert’s to be in the house before next of kin report to Gilbert’s death and any of his relatives arrived. It is undis- body. advised her to come to claim the however, puted, that three after minutes Dorothy alerted her Betty, sister whose call Betty’s phone, the from cell police agreed husband to drive them to Little dispatcher “burglary a in prog- broadcast Dorothy Rock. attorney also called her address, ress” Gilbert’s Bill officer
who told videotape her to the contents of Bentley investigate. was sent to Officer Gilbert’s house. Bentley dispatch- testified at trial that the scene, After two hours on police er had told him that burglary a had been completed investigation their and deter- reported by a woman who said she was mined that death a Gilbert’s was suicide. way Gilbert’s sister on the to Little Rock. leaving, they Before Suggs instructed to house, Bentley When arrived at Gilbert’s house, secure the and she then contacted Suggs standing neighbor’s in the yard. lawyer. lawyer Gilbert’s The advised She went to Bentley, over talk with and he Suggs to all remove valuables and to make informed her that he responding to a sure the house was locked and soon ar- burglary call at that address. told help rived to it. secure While at house, him that she key her own had house, Suggs received a call from Gilbert’s Bentley left concluding after aunt who Betty told her that Dorothy and burglary. there had been no When Doro- were on way their to Little Rock and Rock, thy Betty arrived in they Little suggested that she call them. Gilbert’s attempted get Suggs open lawyer Gilbert’s advised tell the sisters them, house for but they she refused and way did not to drive all have sought police. assistance from the body Little Rock because his could be After locksmith, hiring released fax they gained to the funeral home in entrance to Stamps. videotaped the house and its contents. $41,000 chancery ing guardiаnship There expenditures was evidence that the court Dorothy regard- had report period. ordered to file a a sixteen month funeral, Dorothy began Betty on face that its had faxed it to After Rock Po- making phone Dorothy calls to the Little for inclusion with the letter. De- his death. She Department regarding lice tective Moore testified that he had re- not his that she did believe told ceived and considered the letter and then that she death had been suicide and placed file. had involved. She thought Suggs been County The Pulaski Coroner was called mentioned a note found at the death scene as a Betty rebuttal witness at trial after signed
which had been written and had testified that she had had no contact print аnd which mentioned love for a block with him. The coroner testified that he dog nothing Dorothy but about Mamie. Betty believed was the who had woman name, printed said that Gilbert never his accompanied Dorothy to his office to dis- so it have been uncharacteristic to would cuss facts related to Gilbert’s death. He do so his final note. She added that positively Dorothy identified in the court- Betty when she and went to Gilbert’s room and said primary she had been his death, all the found papers house after his contact about Gilbert’s death but he was signed by long- there had been Gilbert not absolutely Betty certain that had been printed, hand rather than and neither she the other woman who came to his office. Betty notepad nor werе to find a able Dorothy When discovered that a default matching paper used for the suicide judgment could not against be obtained Dorothy also stated that it was not note. deceased, after he was Gilbert she filed a possible thought that Gilbert would have complaint naming new his estate as the dog dying, before but not his mother. respondent. Suggs answered as executrix. Moreover, suicide, if his death had been a chancery subsequently ruled must been another note Suggs there have Dorothy that since had proven anyone Dorothy did not want to see. also *6 incompetent Mamie the time she reported personal papers that Gilbert’s property transferred her or that Gilbert had from his after been removed housе his her, had used undue influence over death. property had remained in estate Gilbert’s 22, 1999, July Dorothy sent a letter On passed Suggs designat- and later to as the to homicide detective Steve Moore which ed heir. allegations. contained similar She also re- quested police that the check the suicide her role as executrix of Gilbert’s es- tate, fingerprints Suggs note to make sure had contacted the Little Rock Gilbert’s did not law- police responding Dorothy’s were on because she believe he before addition, alleged had written it.4 In she suit. She was referred to detective Steve Suggs Dorothy that had tried to determine Moore who told her had al- “how that leged much time she had” before the sisters that Gilbert’s death wаs not a sui- house, suggesting Suggs’ attorney copy arrived at the she need- cide. obtained a of something ed time to accomplish Dorothy’s through before letter to Moore ini- they got Dorothy copies there. attached Freedom of Information Act and later that In her diversity Gilbert’s wills the letter to show tiated this action. com- Suggs plaint Suggs alleged Dorothy stood to benefit from death. had de- copy damage The of the most recent will indicated famed her and caused her of more 4. The letter stated: "Please check the note to I believe there was a note but one that Ms. fingerprints make sure were on it Suggs anyone [Gilbert’s] does not want else to see.” because I DO NOT believe he wrote this note. damagе to evidence of defa- been insufficient $100,000. alleged acts of
than defamatory the claimed Suggs’ reputation, made included statements mation rather than day opinions were police call to the statements telephone fact, death, Dorothy’s letter to detec- and a case had not been statements Gilbert’s death that the alleging Betty. They that Gilbert’s claim against tive Moore made had Suggs and that al- a suicide its discretion had not been district court abused note, and statements Bent- lowing hearsay his actual evidence from officer concealed attempted to Dorothy Suggs had their re- evidence about ley and irrelevant estate which money from the withdraw brother and about lationship with their discovery Mamie. After really belonged to appeal In her cross Dorothy’s lawsuit. complaint her Suggs amended began, argues the district Suggs allege and to a defendant Betty include as an allowing its discretion abused in the de- conspired had that the sisters any pleading correct defect amendment to famatory acts. intentional infliction of in her claim for emotional distress. Dorothy’s testified at trial the state- Moore and letter to detective II. police Rock and to the Little ments made repu- her are entitled county damaged Appellants argue had coroner They and with contend department judgment their favor. tation with by denying heard the accusations. anyone else who the district court erred con- that the had judgment testified sisters as a matter of She also their motion for and had gain for their spired against challenged statements law because time, during very vulnerable to establish hurt her failed privileged, were stress, defamation, and great that she had suffered elements of required properly from prevented support had been evidence to she there was insufficient Detective Moore death. review de grieving judgment against Betty. Gilbert’s We alle- judgment had taken the testified that the a motion for novo the denial of law, that this seriously Corp. in the letter gations matter of see EFCO as a (8th repu- person’s affect a type of letter would 219 F.3d Cir. Symons Corp., 2000), He stated department. light tation with the the evidence in the consider verdict, had been only death will though that even favorable to the most *7 suicide, Dorothy’s would re- ruled a letter if no rea reverse for insufficient evidence indefinitely and could be main in the file returned a ver juror sonable could have in future. He also testi- party. reconsidered Id. The sub prevailing dict for the like not want a letter apply fied that he would law we must this review stantive Erie R. Co. v. written about him. that of Arkansas. See is 817, 64, 78, 82 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. Tompkins, jury The that both sisters had found (1938). L.Ed. 1188 a total of Suggs and defamed awarded ($10,000 $50,000 damages compensatory the sisters seek a In the alternative $30,000 Dor- damages against punitive and the district new trial on the basis $5,000 $5,000 pu- othy; compensatory by allowing its discretion court abused damages against Betty). nitive Bentley officer hearsay evidence from prejudicial evidence. irrelevant and judgment. other appeal The sisters from the evidentiary court’s review the district They court We also contend that the district abuse of discretion. See rulings for a clear by judg- erred denying their motion Preser- Co. v. Historic Fire & Cas. ment as a there had United matter of law because
679 (8th Trust, 722, F.3d 726 Cir. reasonable manner and is lost if vation 265 abused. Dove, 601, Thiel v. 229 Ark. 317 S.W.2d 2001). (1958). 121, 123 The privilege is abused “if A. speaker is by motivated malice rather than by public To defamation under Ar interest that calls prove law, plaintiff privilege being.” kansas must show that she into Id. The question of of fact by was defamed false statement whether malice has been established and damaged which referred to and her and the communication privi shown not to be by the defendant. See published leged a question jury. is of fact for the Id. Hospital, Faulkner Arkansas Children’s Suggs presented evidence that af (2002). 941, 393, 347 Ark. 69 S.W.3d 402 ter Gilbert’s death the sisters shifted their defamatory statement of fact must The animosity from him to they her and that have been to others and communicated were motivated their desire for control detrimentally plain- must have affected the property. jury over Mamie’s was cor Price, reputation. tiffs See Ellis v. defamation, rectly instructed on and the (1999). 543, Ark. Al- 990 S.W.2d jurors verdict indicates that the found that though plaintiff “must establish actual the statements made to the and the ... damage reputation, showing to his coroner about had been motivated defamatory slight.” of harm is Id. The by spite personal gain, аnd desire for rath “imply statement must also an assertion of good public er than faith or interest. Af Faulkner, [any] objective verifiable fact.” examining ter the record in the light most at 402. verdict, to the conclude favorable we there Appellants argue failed to was sufficient evidence from which the prove defamatory statements of fact jury could find that the out sisters acted were communicated to others which detri- po malice and that the statements mentally affected her relations with them. lice coroner were therefore not cov They argue that the- statements made in by qualified privilege. ered Dorothy’s letter and the calls and visits and coroner were covered Appellants clаim that their qualified privilege, nothing more than only opinions, statements were not state opinions expressed, had been and that required ments of fact as Arkansas law. there was insufficient evidence of harm to Supreme The Arkansas Court has ex Suggs’ reputation. Betty argues also however, words, that “where the plained, there was insufficient evidence show circumstances, together with the attendant any defamatory that she took act. part crime, alleged charge are are Verser, Arkansas a communi Bland v. 299 Ark. Under law actionable.” (1989). by qualified privilege cation is covered 774 S.W.2d Whether *8 good any “when it is made in faith of related cir upon the combination words and subject-matter in person making charge question which the cumstances a crime is a of jury. the communication has an interest ... and fact for the Id. The defendant in Bland, having argued to a a for that person corresponding example, inter had he duty, although only expressing opinion by sug est or it contains matters was which, very without such that was either privilege, gesting plaintiff would be the Stores, Lee, stupid converting actionable.” Wal-Mart Inc. v. or had colluded funds. (2002). 707, 634, Ark. “fair 74 S.W.3d Because a and reasonable inference” Qualified privilege must be exercised in a could be drawn from the defendant’s state- 914, Fitzhugh, of a v. Ark. plaintiff guilty that the was 954 S.W.2d
ments
(1997).
act,
were factual
920-21
criminal
the statements
Bland, 774
at
and actionable. See
record,
After
trial
examining the
Here,
evidence
Suggs prеsented
125-26.
we conclude that under Arkansas
law
Dorothy’s
police
that
letter
to the
con-
damage
there was sufficient evidence of
allegations which were also made
tained
Suggs’ reputation. Suggs testified that
calls and visits to the
during
phone
several
very upset
learning
she was
after
that
police and the coroner. The statements
had
appellants
suggested
police
to the
that
suggested
Suggs
had been involved in
Gilbert,
she
involved
the death of
was
death for her own financial inter-
relationship
with whom she had a close
had
est and
she
falsified Gilbert’s
years,
over twelve
and that she had tam
suicide note and hidden the authentic note.
pered with evidence and falsified a suicide
In
a “fair
these circumstanсes
and reason-
note. She also testified that she believed
inference,”
able
id.
could be drawn
allegations
damaged
reputa
their
had
alleged
that the statements had
tion with the
Depart
Little Rock Police
justice
tam-
guilty
obstruction of
or
everyone
ment and with
who heard the
evidence,
pering
implied
with
and had
she
or
accusations
read the letter. She added
might
guilty
even be
of murder. Because
that her fear of how people
reacting
were
allegations
the
that Suggs
had commit-
causing
her immense
at a par
stress
crime,
ted at least one
the letter and oral
ticularly difficult
time
her life. Officer
fact,
contained
statements
statements of
Moore testified that a
Dorothy’s
letter like
merely opinion.
seriously by
police,
was taken
the
could
harm
definitely
person’s reputation
a plaintiffs
Arkansas law
Under.
with
department,
the
and that he would
testimony
reputation
that her
has been
not want such a letter written about him or
injured by defamatory statements can be
placed
in a
investigation file. Gil
evidence of harm.
Hogue
sufficient
See
attorney
Dorothy’s
bert’s
testified that
let
Inc.,
Ameron
286 Ark.
681
sum,
theory Suggs
To succeed with this
had to
the district court did not err by
denying the motion for
Betty
Dorothy
judgment
that
“combined to
as a mat-
show
any
ter of law on
of the
grounds.
asserted
that is unlawful
accomplish
purpose
or
oppressive
accomplish
purpose,
or to
some
B.
unlawful,
not in itself
or immor-
oppressive
Bentley
Officеr
testified that he had
al,
unlawful,
by
oppressive
but
or immoral
been directed to Gilbert’s
by
residence
the
means,
injury
of another.” Faulk-
dispatcher
reported
who
that an “unknown
ner,
phone
at 406. The initial
caller called southwest substation and ad-
call to the Little Rock police was shown to
vised
there was a
burglary
prog-
have been
Betty’s
phone,
made on
cell
ress at her deceased brother’s residence”
call
by
this
initiated a series of contacts
and that “the caller said that she was ...
the sisters about Gilbert’s death.5 There
en route from Louisiana.” The district
was evidence from
the jury
which
could
court admitted this evidence over a hear-
find that Betty was the other woman who
say objection to show the officer’s under-
Dorothy
went with
to the coroner to dis-
standing of the nature of the call to which
cuss concerns related to Gilbert’s death.
he
responding,
and it admitted Bent-
Betty provid-
There was also evidence that
ley’s written report as a business record.
Dorothy
ed
with the
copy Gilbert’s sec-
appellants
While
concede the officer’s own
ond will for attachment to her letter to the
report
observations
are admissible
An
police.
inference could be drawn by
record,
as business
argue
repe-
jury
the purpose of the attach-
dispatcher’s
tition of the
statements was
ment
suggest Suggs
was to
had a motive
hearsay.
inadmissible
We review the dis-
least,
for murder or at
very
trict court’s evidentiary rulings for a cleаr
knew she could benefit
from Gilbert’s
abuse of discretion. See United Fire &
death. Other evidence also tended to
Co.,
Cas.
to recover their property, mother’s includ- it hearsay because was not offered for the ing that Betty encouraged evidence had truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. proper- sister the lawsuit to retrieve 801, see also note supra 5. The statements estate, ty from Gilbert and his had accom- were admitted in order to explain why panied Dorothy throughout, and had testi- went Bentley house even support fied in Dorothy chancery though police already had been earli there proceeding. Because of way er that day investigate his death. See jury allocated damages, obviously Collins, United States v. 996 F.2d Betty’s found involvement to have been (8th Cir.1993) (out of court statement than Dorothy’s, less but we conclude there hearsay explain officer not if offered to jury was sufficient evidence for the to find undertaken); why investigation was see Betty knowingly had combined Arkansas, with Nottingham also Ark.App. (1989) (officer’s Dorothy to defame Suggs. 778 S.W.2d Bentley hearsay prove Officer testified at trial about this fore be if offered to the truth of call, police dispatcher first but the did not. Accordingly, its we content. will not consider report dispatcher, of what was said to the reported the content of statements to have reprеsenting a woman herself as Gilbert's dispatcher. been made to or Rock, way sister on the to Little would there- *10 682 malice, helped Suggs. It also establish call not hear-
testimony concerning phone prompt- necessary what to overcome the sis explain which was say when offered court investigation). qualified privi The district of ed his ters’ affirmative defense the state- jury that damages. also instructed See lege punitive and to obtain why only (conditional to show were to be used Thiel, privi ments at 123 S.W.2d house, not to the officer went Gilbert’s is information to lege providing of the dis- anything stated prove malice rather than the lost if motivated Since the or the caller was true. patcher interest); Flynn McIlroy Bank & public and the hearsay thus not evidence was Trust, Ark. use, on instructed its jury properly (award (1985) in a punitive damages of discretion court did not abuse its district requires defamation case private figure testimony and Bentley’s by allowing officer intent). will, malice, or proof of ill bad report into evidence. written not its discre The district court did abuse by finding the relevance of the evi tion that the argue district Appellants outweighed any prejudicial effect dence by allowing Suggs its discretion abused admitting it. prejudicial and evidence that was present irrelevant, relating to including evidence illness, recover the the lawsuit to
Gilbert’s
III.
Dorothy’s guard-
property, and
mother’s
record,
thorough
After a
review of the
their mother and her assets.
ianship of
court did not
we conclude that the district
offered
charge that this evidence was
They
evidentiary
in its
rul-
its discretion
abuse
bad
they
persons
were
to show
sufficient evidence
ings and that there was
under
and thus inadmissible
character
of Arkansas law to
requirements
under the
404(b).
Suggs responds
Fed.R.Evid.
jury findings
support
necessary to
was relevant and
the evidence
companion.
Ac-
sisters had defamed
conspired
claims
sisters
her
affirm the
of the
cordingly,
judgment
we
her,
and to
punitive damages,
defame
appeal
district court and dismiss
cross
privilege.
qualified
their defense of
counter
as moot.6
that she
says the evidence shows
She also
animosity
object
of the sisters’
became
GRITZNER,
dissenting.
Judge,
District
transfer of their mother’s
of the
because
оf a cause of
The essential elements
property.
have
action for defamation
Arkansas
A district court
is afforded
been outlined as follows:
determining
issues of rele
latitude
wide
turns on
An action for defamation
only
will
reverse if there is
vancy, and we
publica-
or
whether the communication
EFCO
a clear abuse
discretion. See
reasonably calculated to
tion tends or is
tude toward mation, following party prove must regain pos had worked in concert to (1) defamatory nаture of elements: first property, session of their mother’s (2) fact; state- later from the statement from their brother and then pled she such a be because argues appeal that if should reinstated in her cross abused its discre- appeal, and the district court appellants succeed claim with their allowing it. her to amend of distress tion claim for intentional infliction
683
Fitzhugh,
identification of or reference
defamation action.”
954
ment’s
S.W.2d
added).
(3)
(emphasis
at 920-21
of the
plaintiff;
publication
the
state-
(4)
defendant;
the
ment
the
defen-
1998,
In
Arkansas' abandoned
per
the
se
(5)
the
publication;
dant’s fault
the
damages rule in defamation cases. United
(6)
falsity;
damages.
statement’s
Am.,
Ins. Co.
961
at 755.
S.W.2d
The
of
announced,
Supreme
Arkansas
Cоurt
Newspapers,
Fitzhugh,
Little Rock
Inc. v.
forward,
opinion
“[f]rom
date of this
(1997)
561,
914,
Ark.
954
918
330
S.W.2d
plaintiff
we hold that a
in a defamation
(citations omitted).
I
Because
believe the
case must prove reputational injury in or-
majority opinion essentially eliminates the
damages.”
der
to recover
Id. at 755.
element,
respectfully
sixth
I must
dissent.
Therefore,
in cases in which a private
prove
“A
must
that the defama-
plaintiff
plaintiff
private
sues a
defendant and a
statement(s)
tory
have been communicated
shown,
defamatory statement
is
the dam-
to others and that
the statements have
age
longer
presumed.7
element could no
be
detrimentally
affected those
relations.
Id.
require proof
The law does not
of actual
What constitutes actual
in an
damages
Price,
expenses.”
out of
Ellis v.
pocket
Arkansas defamation
helpfully
action is
il-
542,
543,
337 Ark.
990 S.W.2d
546-47
quality
lustrated
of
evidence
(1999). “A plaintiff must establish actual
Ellis,
Ellis v. Price.
This
own conclu-
meaning,
plaintiffs
sas has
v. Arkansas Chil-
case of Faulkner
recent
reputation
injury
about
sions or fears
Arkansas Su-
the
Hospital, wherein
dren’s
by evidence
those
supported
must be
properly
trial
found the
preme Court
have some
or fears
basis
conclusions
the
because
a defamation action
dismissed
damage to
example, “[p]roof of
fact. For
supporting
plead
failed to
facts
plaintiff
(1)
peo-
may
proof
include:
reputation
Faulkner
damage
reputation.
actual
the
plaintiff
guilty
to be
ple believed
Ark.
Hosp., Children’s
Ark.
(2)
publication,
in the
or
conduct asserted
(2002).
facts
lengthy
The
thought less of
people
plain-
prоof
story of untrue retal-
in Faulkner detail a
publication’s
of the
defama-
tiff as a result
plaintiff
made about
iatory statements
Newspapers,
Little Rock
tory content.”
and
suspension
to her
which contributed
at 921.
954 S.W.2d
Faulk-
Id. at 396-99.
eventual demotion.
injury
reputa-
that no
It is axiomatic
a special
coordinator for
was a nurse
ner
receiving
person
can
when
tion
result
Hospi-
unit at Arkansas Children’s
mobile
is not true.
knows it
the communication
(ACH).
years at
at 396. After two
Id.
tal
at
progress
burglary
of a
report
ACH,
staff en-
hospital
of the
members
minutes,
was, within
deter-
the residence
removing
aimed
gaged
conduct
untrue. The
to be
by
mined
Id. The con-
position.
her
from
Faulkner
the Little Rock
communications to
calls,
various
letters,
phonе
included
duct
may not have been
Department
administration,
Police
alleg-
meetings with ACH
privilege under
by
qualified
protected
blaming
was unstable
ing Faulkner
case,
this
but
re-
the circumstances
was not
for which
for errors
she
family
Ryder
were still made
concerned
mem-
one at
ever saw the letter or knew
questioning the conclusion of suicide
addition,
bers
of the accusations.
In
she was
investigation by law
inviting
further
terminated in June
which was eleven
enforcement. The
reflects this is
record
months after the letter was sent to the
commonly
in cases of
seen
LRPD.
suicide. Police utilize such information
Suggs testified her
relationship with
process
investigation
of their
which
Mamie was noticeably affected the day
its essential nature
withholds
determina-
before Gilbert’s funeral. This was weeks
accuracy
allegations
tion of the
of the
the allegedly defamatory
before
letter was
fact,
pending confirmation.
the Little
*13
Furthermore,
sent.
Suggs testified she
Department
Rock Police
concluded the
year
had not seen Mamie for over a
and a
death
was a suicide
determined to
prior
half
to Gilbert’s death.
Thus,
any
investigation.
close
further
Proof of a claim of defamation requires a
only persons to whom the defendants pub-
showing
damages.
Little Rock Newspa-
found them to
allegations
lished
be
pers,
has to occur. testimony
Officer Moore’s that such a seriously by
communication is taken
police person’s reputation, could harm a and that he would not want such a letter FINK, Appellant, Sarah Plaintiff — file, written about him or placеd analysis. does not alter the That such a annoying
communication is or could harm DAKOTACARE; Dakotacare Adminis person’s reputation prove does not Services, Inc.; trative Platte Commu damage. element of That take an nity Inc., Hospital, Memorial Defen allegation seriously does rise to defa- Appellees. dants — mation in investigatory the face of the No. 02-1679. process contrary with a conclusion. Appeals, United States Court of Moore,
Other than only Officer wit- Eighth Circuit. ness who Suggs’ read the letter was friend Tapp only Connie Tapp. knew about the Submitted: 2002. Nov. her, letter because showed Filed: March she testified the did letter not affect her opinion of Suggs. job worries she lost her because letter, yet
of the proof any- she offers no