Romaine v. Kallinger
537 A.2d 284 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The truthful publication of information obtained from official public court records, even years after the events occurred, is not an actionable invasion of privacy. A statement is not defamatory if, when viewed in its full context, its fair and natural meaning as understood by a reasonable person does not impute criminality or disrepute.
Facts:
- In 1975, Joseph Kallinger and his son broke into the Romaine home and held eight people hostage, including plaintiffs Randi Romaine, Edwina Wiseman, Retta Romaine Welby, and Frank Welby.
- The hostages were subjected to physical and personal abuse during the incident.
- Maria Fasching, a friend of Randi Romaine, arrived at the house during the crime, was captured, and was subsequently murdered by Kallinger.
- The details of the crime, including the victims' testimony, became part of the public court record during Kallinger's trial.
- In 1983, approximately eight years after the crimes, Simon & Schuster published 'The Shoemaker,' a book by Flora Rheta Schreiber about Kallinger's life.
- The book contained detailed descriptions of the crimes committed against the plaintiffs, based on trial testimony.
- One passage in the book stated a reason for Fasching's visit was her eagerness 'for news from Randi about a junkie they both knew who was doing time in prison.'
Procedural Posture:
- Randi Romaine and other victims sued author Flora Rheta Schreiber and publisher Simon & Schuster in a New Jersey trial court for defamation and invasion of privacy.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The plaintiffs (petitioners) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court, for certification to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a book's statement that a crime victim knew a 'junkie,' and its publication of graphic details of the crime derived from public records eight years later, support claims for defamation or invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Handler, J.
No. A statement is not defamatory if a court determines it is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, and the publication of facts from public records is not an invasion of privacy. For the defamation claim, the sentence about knowing a 'junkie' does not, under a fair and natural reading, accuse Randi Romaine of criminality; at most, it suggests she knows a drug addict, which is not defamatory as a matter of law. When viewed in the context of the chapter describing Maria Fasching as compassionate, the interest in the 'junkie' is implied to be one of sympathy, not criminality. The false light claim fails for the same reason—the statement is not highly offensive to a reasonable person. The unreasonable publication of private facts claim fails because the details of the crime were taken from official court records, making them part of the public domain and therefore not 'private' facts. Citing Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information contained in public records. Furthermore, the events remained newsworthy and a matter of legitimate public concern, even after eight years had passed.
Dissenting - O'Hern, J.
Yes, as to the defamation claim, the issue should have been decided by a jury. The court's role is to determine if a statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, not to definitively decide its meaning on summary judgment. While not defamatory as a matter of law, the insinuation that Randi Romaine was an associate of a 'junkie' is ambiguous and reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. Because the statement could 'sound to the disreputation' of the plaintiff, a jury should be the one to determine which of the possible meanings—innocent or defamatory—was understood by the readers. Dismissing the claim on summary judgment deprived the plaintiff of her right to a jury trial on a contested issue of fact.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal protection afforded to publishers regarding matters of public interest and public records. It establishes that the newsworthiness of a crime does not diminish with the passage of time, preventing individuals involved in past public events from successfully suing for invasion of privacy years later. The case also strengthens the judicial gatekeeping role in defamation suits, allowing judges to dismiss claims early if they determine a statement is not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, thereby preventing potentially costly jury trials over ambiguous language.
Unlock the full brief for Romaine v. Kallinger