## Facts

- Joseph Kallinger committed a series of violent crimes, including robberies involving threats and sexual abuse and three murders.
- Plaintiffs were among Kallinger’s victims; the events included the murder of Maria Fasching.
- A nonfiction book about Kallinger’s life and crimes was published by an author and a publisher.
- The book included a passage stating that Fasching visited plaintiff Randi Romaine to hear news about a “junkie” the two knew who was in prison.
- Romaine alleged the passage implied she associated with criminals and harmed her reputation and employment prospects as a drug counselor and social worker.
- Plaintiffs sued the author and publisher for libel, invasion of privacy (false light and publication of private facts), unjust enrichment, and related statutory claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the author and publisher; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “junkie” passage was reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning as to Romaine.
2. Whether the book’s portrayal of the victims supported claims for false light or publication of private facts despite constitutional protection for reporting on matters of public concern.
3. Whether summary judgment for the author and publisher was proper on the defamation and privacy claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed summary judgment for the author and publisher.
- The court held the challenged passage was not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning as a matter of law.
- The court rejected the false light and private-facts privacy claims because the book concerned a newsworthy criminal episode of legitimate public interest and did not create an actionable falsification or gratuitous, non-newsworthy disclosure.
- Because the claims failed as a matter of law, there was no triable issue of material fact.

## Legal Principles

- The threshold question in defamation is whether the statement is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning; this is a question of law for the court.
- Defamatory meaning is assessed in context, according to the fair and natural meaning a reasonable reader would attribute to the publication as a whole.
- An assertion that a person merely knows or is acquainted with a criminal, without additional implications, is generally not defamatory absent exigent circumstances.
- Privacy torts for false light and publication of private facts are limited by constitutional protection for truthful or substantially accurate reporting on matters of legitimate public concern, including serious crimes and their consequences.
- Courts may terminate defamation and privacy claims at summary judgment when the publication is non-actionable as a matter of law to avoid chilling protected expression.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the victims’ claims against the author and publisher, holding that the book’s “junkie” reference did not defame Romaine and that the challenged portrayals were constitutionally protected treatment of a newsworthy crime rather than actionable false light or publication of private facts.


Romaine v. Kallinger, 109 N.J. 282, 537 A.2d 284 (N.J. 1988)