## Facts

- William “Bill” Smolinski, Jr. disappeared from Waterbury, Connecticut in August 2004 and was never found.
- Madeleine Gleason, a former girlfriend, became the focus of suspicion by Bill’s mother and sister.
- The defendants placed many missing-person flyers (with Bill’s photo and tip information) along Gleason’s bus route and near her home; the flyers did not identify Gleason.
- The defendants also made oral statements to others accusing Gleason of involvement in the disappearance, including calling her a “murderer.”
- Gleason alleged severe emotional distress and sued for defamation (based on oral accusations) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) (based primarily on the flyer campaign).

## Issues

1. Whether speech related to a missing person investigation is a matter of public concern triggering First Amendment limits on tort liability.
2. Whether a private-figure plaintiff must prove falsity and fault to recover for defamation arising from speech on a matter of public concern.
3. Whether an IIED claim premised on expressive conduct must be evaluated under First Amendment safeguards to prevent bypassing defamation limits.
4. Whether appellate review must independently examine the record where First Amendment protections are implicated.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment affirming liability and damages.
- The Court ordered a new trial on the defamation and IIED claims.
- It held that the trial court’s analysis did not apply First Amendment limitations governing defamation and speech-based IIED.
- It concluded that both the trial court and the Appellate Court failed to perform the constitutionally required scrutiny where speech on a matter of public concern was involved.

## Legal Principles

- Speech on a matter of public concern receives heightened First Amendment protection, constraining common-law tort liability.
- In defamation actions involving speech on a matter of public concern, a private-figure plaintiff bears the burden to prove falsity and must prove the constitutionally required level of fault.
- A trial court must make explicit findings addressing falsity and the applicable fault standard; using labels such as “actual malice” is insufficient without the required constitutional analysis.
- IIED claims premised on speech must be evaluated to ensure they do not function as a substitute for defamation without the safeguards that protect public-concern expression.
- When First Amendment concerns are present, appellate courts must conduct an independent review to ensure the judgment does not improperly burden protected expression.

## Conclusion

Because the challenged conduct and statements related to a missing person investigation—a matter of public concern—the trial court could not impose defamation and IIED liability without applying First Amendment requirements, including proof of falsity and fault for defamation and constitutionally informed scrutiny of speech-based IIED; the case was remanded for a new trial under the proper standards.


Gleason v. Smolinski, 319 Conn. 394 (Conn. 2015)