Vasquez v. Courtney
| Decision Date | 23 December 1976 |
| Parties | Israel VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. Jerry COURTNEY and Lee Vasquez, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Harold W. Adams, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Edward H. Warren, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Michael A. Lehner and Hershiser, Mitchell & Warren, Portland.
Before DENECKE, C.J., and O'CONNELL, HOLMAN, TONGUE, HOWELL, BRYSON and LENT, JJ.
This is an action for libel which arises out of a letter sent by the defendants, deputy sheriffs of Yamhill County, to a parole officer of the Oregon State Corrections Division. The parole officer was conducting a supplemental presentence investigation in connection with plaintiff's conviction on charges of criminal activity in drugs. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the letter 'falsely, maliciously, intentionally and incorrectly accused Plaintiff of a series of illegal acts' involving extensive drug activities. Defendants interposed a demurrer which raised the defense of absolute privilege on the grounds that the alleged libel took place within the course of a judicial proceeding. The trial judge concluded that the letter was absolutely privileged because:
'The statements in question were made in the course of a 'judicial proceeding,' since the process of sentencing and the making of presentence reports to assist the judge in that process clearly fall within the scope of a complete criminal case.'
He sustained the demurrer, and plaintiff appealed to this court.
The only issue on appeal is whether the alleged libel took place within the course of a judicial proceeding and, therefore, is absolutely privileged. 'When defamatory matter is absolutely privileged no cause of action exists even though the defamatory matter is uttered maliciously, as well as falsely.' Moore v. West Lawn Mem'l Park, 266 Or. 244, 249, 512 P.2d 1344, 1346 (1973).
Absolute immunity attaches to all statements made in the course of, or incidental to, a judicial proceeding, so long as they are relevant to the proceedings. Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or. 383, 388, 347 P.2d 594, 77 A.L.R.2d 481 (1959). Sentencing a criminal defendant is clearly a judicial function and an integral part of the overall criminal case. Similarly, the presentence investigative report is an important aspect of the sentencing process. The report is prepared by a probation officer at the direction of the court for use in determining an appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGranahan v. Dahar
...v. Maksin, 71 Ill.2d 470, 17 Ill.Dec. 662, 376 N.E.2d 991 (1978) (complaint from State department of agriculture); Vasquez v. Courtney, 276 Or. 1053, 557 P.2d 672 (1976) (presentencing investigation). For this reason, we adopt the rule that treats both formal and informal complaints and sta......
-
Kocontes v. McQuaid
...(2004); Burgess v. Silverglat, 217 Mont. 186, 703 P.2d 854 (1985); Pulkrabek v. Sletten, 557 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1996); Vasquez v. Courtney, 276 Or. 1053, 557 P.2d 672 (1976). See, also, Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctional v. Greenholtz, 436 F.Supp. 432 (D.Neb.1976). 28. Pulkrabek v. Sletten,......
-
Sahara Gaming v. CULINARY WKRS. UNION
...made in the course of, or incidental to, a judicial proceeding, so long as they are relevant to the proceedings." Vasquez v. Courtney, 276 Or. 1053, 557 P.2d 672, 673 (1976) (citing Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or. 383, 347 P.2d 594, 596 (1959)). Publications made in the course of judicial proce......
-
Couture v. Trainer
...v. Dahar, 119 N.H. 758, 408 A.2d 121, 124 (1979) ; Pulkrabek v. Sletten, 557 N.W.2d 225, 226 (N.D. 1996) ; Vasquez v. Courtney, 276 Or. 1053, 557 P.2d 672, 673 (1976).¶ 13. Moreover, the Restatement supports the extension of absolute privilege to "communications preliminary to a proposed ju......