Chandler v. Publ'g, SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015-265
| Decision Date | 19 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015-265 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
| Parties | Charles Chandler v. Rutland Herald Publishing, et al. |
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.
Superior Court, Windham Unit, Civil Division
DOCKET NO. 104-3-15 Wmvc
Trial Judge: Mary Miles Teachout
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Plaintiff Charles Chandler appeals from the trial court's order striking his complaint as violating Vermont's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation) statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. We affirm.
In March 2015, Chandler sued defendants for writing and publishing an article about him. The article was published in January 2007, and it described allegations that Chandler had falsely accused the Windham County Sheriff of seeking "protection money" from area businesses, and criminal charges that resulted against Chandler for making false allegations. The article also described another criminal charge pending against Chandler for impeding a public officer. Chandler argued that the article was false and he raised claims of libel and intentional inflection of emotional distress. He sought $212,000,000 in damages.
Defendant moved to strike the complaint under Vermont's anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041. That law allows "[a] defendant in an action arising from the defendant's exercise, in connection with a public issue, of the right to freedom of speech" to file a special motion to strike a complaint at the outset of the case. Id. § 1041(a). The law protects, among other things, "any written . . . statement concerning an issue of public interest made in a public forum." Id. § 1041(i)(3); see also Felis v. Downs Rachlin Martin, PLLC, 2015 VT 129, ¶¶ 28-53 (). If a defendant satisfies this threshold requirement, the court must grant the motion to strike "unless the plaintiff shows that (A) the defendant's exercise of his or her right to freedom of speech and to petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support and any arguable basis in law; and (B) the defendant's acts caused actual injury to the plaintiff." 12 V.S.A. § 1041(e)(1)(A), (B).
The court granted defendant's motion to strike here. It found that the disputed article was a garden-variety newspaper article describing criminal charges arising out of public confrontations between a member of the public and public officials. The court concluded that the article plainly constituted a "written . . . statement concerning an issue of public interest made in a public forum." Id. § 1041(i)(1)(A). As set forth above, Chandler had the burden to show that the article "was devoid of any reasonable factual support and any arguable basis in law." Id. § 1041(e)(1)(A). Chandler asserted only that the article was frivolous, vexatious, baseless, malicious, and it had caused him "millions of dollars of damage." He produced no evidence that the article lacked reasonable factual support and incorrectly asserted that defendants bore the burden of proof. Even though defendants had no burden, they had affirmatively supported their motion to strike with a detailed showing of factual support. The court noted, moreover, that the article recounted allegations and court records, and it did not purport to reveal the truth of what really happened during the underlying events. The court concluded that Chandler violated the letter and spirit of 12 V.S.A. § 1041 by filing his suit. It thus struck the complaint and awarded attorneys' fees and costs to defendants. See id. § 1041(f)(1) (). This appeal followed.*
Chandler argues on appeal that the article was false, damaging to his reputation, and intended to attack and harass him. He contends that defendants were not exercising their First Amendment rights in publishing the article, although he provides no legal support for this assertion. Additionally, Chandler maintains that defendants provided insufficient evidence to support their claims, reiterating his position that defendants bear the burden of proof. Chandler presents his version of events, and asserts that the court erred in reaching its conclusion. He also argues that the court should have granted his motion for summary judgment, rather than denying it as moot. Finally, Chandler appears to suggest that the trial court was biased against him.
We find no error. Chandler sued defendants for writing and publishing a newspaper article. The article described Chandler's allegations that the local sheriff and her top deputy solicited "protection money" from him, it set forth the results of a police investigation into those allegations, it described criminal charges that resulted against Chandler for his allegations, and, relying on court documents, it described another pending criminal charge against Chandler for impeding a public official. Chandler was in fact convicted of impeding a public officer, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. See State v. Chandler, No. 2010-135, 2011 WL 4974829 (Vt. Jan. 27, 2011) (unpub. mem.), https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/LC/unpublishedeo.aspx.
We agree with the trial court that Chandler's complaint arises from defendants' "exercise, in connection with a public issue, of the right to freedom of speech," which includes "any written . . . statement concerning an issue of public interest made in a public forum." 12 V.S.A. §§ 1041(a), (i)(3). Allegations of public corruption clearly present a matter of public interest, as do the results of an investigation into such allegations, including criminal charges being lodgedagainst the person who made the allegations. The fact that Chandler had another pending criminal charge that involved public officers also presented a matter of public interest. We have stated that "[p]ursuant to the First Amendment, it is generally recognized that the public and the media have a constitutional right of access to information relating to the activities of law enforcement officers and to information concerning crime in the community." Caledonia Record Publ'g Co. v. Walton, 154 Vt. 15, 21, 24 (1990) (); see also 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(5) (); Bain v. Windham Cty. Sheriff Keith Clark, 2012 VT 14, ¶ 18, 191 Vt. 190 ; Colt v. Freedom Commc'ns, 1 Cal. Rptr.3d 245, 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (). As the United States Supreme Court has explained in a different context, "[s]peech involves matters of public concern when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or when it is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 2380 (2014) (quotations omitted) ( that content of testimony at...
To continue reading
Request your trial