## Facts

- The Denver Post published two articles in 1974, written by reporter John Toohey, describing Eugene DeWitt’s financial dealings and activities of Diversified Management, Inc. (DMI).
- The articles discussed DeWitt’s relationship with a banker and reported that multiple governmental bodies were investigating DeWitt and his land-development activities.
- The reporting concerned alleged improper land-development schemes and potential effects on consumers, including sales of lots still being offered to the public.
- DeWitt and DMI alleged the articles were false, defamatory, and harmed their reputations.

## Issues

1. Whether DeWitt and DMI were public figures or private figures for defamation purposes.
2. Whether the articles addressed matters of public or general concern triggering heightened First Amendment protections.
3. Whether the jury was properly instructed that plaintiffs had to prove actual malice (reckless disregard for truth) by clear and convincing evidence, and whether “reckless disregard” was correctly defined.
4. Whether other alleged instructional or trial errors required reversal of the defense verdict.

## Decision

- The court held DeWitt and DMI were private figures, not public figures.
- The court held the articles involved matters of public or general concern because they reported on governmental investigations and potential consumer impacts.
- The court approved requiring plaintiffs to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and upheld the trial court’s definition of reckless disregard as publication while subjectively entertaining serious doubts as to truth.
- The court found no reversible error in the instructions or rulings and affirmed the jury verdict for the Denver Post and Toohey.

## Legal Principles

- A person is not a public figure absent evidence that the person voluntarily injected himself into a specific public controversy to influence its resolution; mere news coverage or occasional media contact is insufficient.
- Reporting on governmental investigations and alleged misconduct affecting consumers may constitute speech on matters of public or general concern.
- In defamation actions arising from publication on matters of public concern, constitutional limits require proof of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
- “Reckless disregard” requires more than negligence; the defendant must have actually entertained serious doubts about the truth of the publication.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in a libel case arising from investigative reporting, holding that although the plaintiffs were private figures, the public-concern nature of the reporting required proof of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, and the jury was properly instructed under that standard.


Diversified Mgmt., Inc. v. Denver Post, Inc., 653 P.2d 1103 (Colo. 1982)