Find Legal Information

PRESIDING JUSTICE MAAG delivered the opinion of the court:

Kirk Myers and Joan E. Myers (collectively plaintiffs) brought this action against TheTelegraph newspaper and Thomas Wrausmann, a reporter (collectively defendants), fordamages arising from the publication of two articles indicating that Kirk Myers pleadedguilty to a felony and that he received probation. The complaint alleges defamation, recklessinfliction of emotional distress, and false light. The circuit court dismissed plaintiffs'complaint. Plaintiffs appealed and are raising issues regarding the sufficiency of thepleadings.

The relevant facts are as follows. On May 1, 2000, an information was filed chargingKirk Myers with unlawful possession of cannabis, a Class B misdemeanor (720 ILCS550/4(b) (West 2000)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), a Class 4felony (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2000)), and unlawful possession with intent to delivera controlled substance (cocaine), a Class 2 felony (720 ILCS 570/401(d) (West 2000)). KirkMyers pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of cannabis on November 27, 2000. Thefelony charges were dismissed. He was placed on conditional discharge and fined $500.

On November 30, 2000, The Telegraph published a front-page newspaper article inits "Quad County Edition," authored by Wrausmann, The Telegraph's Jerseyville bureauchief, that stated as follows:

"The owner of Harris' Tavern in rural Godfrey has pleaded guilty to felonypossession of marijuana in Jersey County Circuit Court, officials said Wednesday.

Kirk P. Myers, 51, of Edwardsville, received six months['] probation and mustpay a $500 fine, court officials said.

Conditions of his probation include not violating any penal statutes andordinances and keeping the Jersey County Circuit Clerk's office advised of hisresidence, officials said." (Emphasis added.)

On December 9, 2000, The Telegraph published a newspaper article on page A3, alsoauthored by Wrausmann, about plaintiff Kirk Myers. The article contained the followingstatements:

"In a separate case, Myers pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana Nov. 27in the Jerseyville court, officials said. Myers received six months' probation andmust pay a $500 fine." (Emphasis added.)

All of the elected and appointed officials and employees of the circuit court of JerseyCounty, Illinois, who held such positions on November 27, 2000 (including the presidingjudge, the circuit court clerk and staff, the State's Attorney, the assistant State's Attorney, theState's Attorney's staff, the court security officer, the court reporter, all probation officers,the sheriff, and the chief deputy sheriff), denied that they ever made any oral or writtenstatements to Wrausmann or any other reporter or person or entity indicating or implying thatKirk Myers of Edwardsville, Illinois, pleaded guilty to a felony on November 27, 2000, inthe Jerseyville court. They further denied ever making an oral or written statement toanyone that Kirk Myers received a sentence that included probation. The same officials andemployees also confirmed that, to the best of their knowledge, there are no court documentsor any other official documents that indicate or imply the matters set forth in the excerptedportions of the newspaper articles quoted above. Moreover, the foregoing officials andemployees also deny that they gave originals or copies of documents to Wrausmann orallowed him to have access to any documents of any description. They also deny providingdocuments to any other person or entity that indicate or imply that Kirk Myers pleaded guiltyto a felony or that he received probation on November 27, 2000, or at any other time.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 2, 2001, naming The Telegraph andWrausmann as defendants. The suit alleged defamation, reckless infliction of emotionaldistress, and false light. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. Defendants claim that even though they mistakenly reported that Kirk Myers pleaded guiltyto a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, and was placed on probation, rather than conditionaldischarge, these are secondary details that do not alter the substantial accuracy of defendants'news report. The circuit court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs appeal.

Initially, plaintiffs claim that the news accounts were per se defamatory and falloutside the fair-reporting privilege. Defendants claim that because the news report was"substantially accurate," the fair-reporting privilege applied and immunized them fromliability.

Section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9)(West 2000)) provides for the involuntary dismissal of a cause of action where the claimasserted is barred by "affirmative matter" avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim.An "affirmative matter" is something in the nature of a defense that completely negates thecause of action or refutes crucial conclusions of law or conclusions of material factunsupported by allegations of specific fact contained in or inferred from the complaint. Antler v. Classic Residence Management Ltd. Partnership, 315 Ill. App. 3d 259, 264, 733N.E.2d 393, 397 (2000). Our review of the grant of a motion to dismiss under section 2-619of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2000)) is de novo. Goldberg v. Michael, 328 Ill. App.3d 593, 597, 766 N.E.2d 246, 250 (2002). For purposes of a section 2-619 motion, the courtmust treat as true all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences that can be drawn fromthe complaint. Avakian v. Chulengarian, 328 Ill. App. 3d 147, 152, 766 N.E.2d 283, 288(2002).

In order for one to make out a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must set forthsufficient facts showing that the defendant made a false statement concerning the plaintiff,that there was an unprivileged publication of the defamatory statement to a third party by thedefendant, and that the plaintiff was damaged. Stavros v. Marrese, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1052,1057, 753 N.E.2d 1013, 1017 (2001). We must first determine whether the statementscontained in the news reports asserting that Kirk Myers pleaded guilty to a felony and wassentenced to probation may be considered defamatory.

Five categories of statements are considered "defamatory per se" and give rise to acause of action for defamation without a showing of special damages: (1) words that imputethe commission of a criminal offense, (2) words that impute an infection with a loathsomecommunicable disease, (3) words that impute an inability to perform or want of integrity inone's discharge of the duties of office or employment, (4) words that prejudice a party, orimpute a lack of ability, in his or her trade, profession, or business, and (5) false accusationsof fornication or adultery. Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77, 672N.E.2d 1207 (1996).

We agree with plaintiffs that the news reports containing statements that Kirk Myerspleaded guilty to a felony are defamatory per se under the first category set forth above. Werecognize that both misdemeanor and felony convictions are criminal convictions.Nevertheless, we believe that because a felony conviction carries significantly greater legalconsequences than a misdemeanor does, the per se rule should still apply in this case. Someof these consequences are set forth later in this decision.

Moreover, we believe that society at large views a "felon" far differently than aperson who has committed an offense resulting in a misdemeanor conviction. While mostpersons would be unable to give a precise legal definition of the terms "misdemeanor" or"felony," we have no doubt that the prevailing view would be that a misdemeanor is a minoroffense and a felony is a serious crime. That would be a correct view as a generalproposition. We see little, if any, practical difference between falsely accusing a person ofcommitting a crime and falsely attributing a felony conviction to a person who pleadedguilty only to a misdemeanor. The likelihood of damage to one's reputation by the falseattribution of felonious conduct approaches a near certainty.

Issues of privilege, fair comment, and criticism on matters of public interest andissues of innocent construction are all affirmative defenses that may be raised by anddetermined upon a motion to dismiss. Kilbane v. Sabonjian, 38 Ill. App. 3d 172, 175, 347N.E.2d 757, 761 (1976). Deciding whether the news accounts are privileged involves nomore than the application of the law to the facts at hand. O'Donnell v. Field Enterprises,Inc., 145 Ill. App. 3d 1032, 1041, 491 N.E.2d 1212, 1218 (1986). Section 611 of theRestatement (Second) of Torts defines the fair-reporting privilege as follows:

"The publication of defamatory matter concerning another in a report of an officialaction or proceeding *** is privileged if the report is accurate and complete or a fairabridgement of the occurrence reported." Restatement (Second) of Torts