Hennessee v. Mathis

Citations: 737 P.2d 958; 1987 OK CIV APP 35; 1987 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 123Docket: 63805

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma; May 12, 1987; Oklahoma; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Oklahoma reviewed a jury verdict favoring Appellees William Mathis and Colby Carden against Appellant Alford Hennessee, a former Chief of Police in Lawton, on a counter-claim for defamation. Hennessee had initially filed a lawsuit against Mathis and Carden, alleging excessive force and unlawful arrest, resulting in personal injury and damages. In retaliation, Appellees counter-claimed for defamation, citing Hennessee's complaint to the Lawton Police Department and his statements to the media regarding the arrest.

The evidence revealed that Hennessee was involved in a dispute with a tenant, during which he brandished a firearm to remove the tenant from his property. Upon police arrival, Hennessee acknowledged possessing the gun and made a movement towards it, prompting officers to draw their weapons and restrain him, leading to a scuffle and his arrest. Hennessee later filed a complaint about the officers' use of excessive force and publicly shared his account of the incident.

During the trial, the court allowed polygraph examinations regarding the incident, with results indicating Hennessee's deception on multiple points. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the Appellees on both Hennessee's claim and their defamation counter-claim, awarding them actual and punitive damages. Hennessee's appeal focuses on the jury's verdict regarding the defamation claim. The trial court did not provide specific instructions on the polygraph results to the jury nor did Hennessee request instructions relating to the defamation claim, although he objected to some of Appellees' requested instructions.

The Appellant's defense in a defamation case was limited to a claim of truth, without any instructions given regarding the defense of privilege. The jury found against the Appellant, awarding the Appellees $12,000 in actual damages and $8,000 in punitive damages. The Appellant contends that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the privilege defense and by allowing polygraph examination results as evidence. The Appellant failed to preserve the issue of jury instructions since no specific instructions were requested or provided in his brief, necessitating a review for fundamental error only.

Oklahoma law recognizes a privilege to criticize public officers unless it falsely imputes a crime. Past rulings confirm that citizen complaints against police officers are absolutely privileged, which should have precluded the Appellees' defamation claim. The court's failure to instruct the jury on this privilege is deemed fundamental error, warranting a reversal. Additionally, the Appellees, as public officials, must demonstrate that the Appellant published false statements with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth to succeed in their defamation claim. The Appellant can assert both the truth of his statements and their privileged nature as defenses. However, privilege does not extend to false statements.

Statements characterized as opinions, rather than facts, cannot be deemed false and are not actionable if a reasonable reader would not interpret them as implying criminal conduct. The trial evidence presented conflicting interpretations regarding whether the statements were protected opinions or defamatory accusations. The trial court's failure to instruct on the issues of protected privilege, opinion, and potential malice constituted fundamental error, necessitating a reversal of the verdict. Additionally, the trial court permitted polygraph examinations and allowed their results to be argued before the jury, which, despite the appellant's lack of consistent objections, was deemed highly prejudicial and reversible error. Oklahoma courts generally discourage the admission of polygraph results, especially in criminal cases, and the scientific reliability of such tests has not been established sufficiently to admit their results as evidence in civil matters. Consequently, the jury verdict against the appellant is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on the appellees' counterclaims, with instructions aligned with this opinion and Oklahoma law. The issue of attorney fees is considered moot.