Amylou R. v. County of Riverside Appellant's Opening Brief

First Amendment context, conviction must be reversed where record insufficient to
eliminate the possibility either that appellants constitutionally protected activity was
the sole basis of conviction or that he was convicted for both protected and
unprotected activities]; see NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) 458 U.S. 886,
922-932 [judgment reversed where record discloses not all damages caused by
unprotected conduct].)
Second, even leaving privilege aside and viewing this as a purely evidentiary
issue, so that the more stringent "reasonably probable" standard applies, the trial
court's error mandates reversal.w It is virtually certain that the County would have
obtained a more favorable result had the evidence of defamation been excluded:
defamation was the principal theory the case was tried upon. Plaintiff's testimony
pertaining to damages regarding injury and emotional distress focused primarily on
what others thought of her and how that had purportedly ruined her life. (RT 1278,
1406, 1416.) That is, by her own testimony, her primary injury -- serious or severe
distress -- resulted from the alleged defamatory communications, and it may be
presumed that it was for that injury she was awarded the bulk of her damages. If
there is any doubt that the evidence permitted plaintiff improperly to reassert her
slander claim and that such evidence carried the day for her, it is dispelled by the trial
court's comments at the hearing on post-trial motions, including:
"The major thrust
of [the case] was slander and the resulting emotional distress."
(RT 14-15.)ll!
Accordingly, on this ground alone -- the prejudicial error in denying the County's
motion in limine and in refusing to exclude evidence of defamatory communications --
20/ Error is prejudicial when "it is reasonably probable that a result more
favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error. "
(Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1069); Osborn v. Mission Ready
Mix (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 114.)
21/ Again, this reference is to the reporter's transcript of the post-trial hearing, the
pages of which were not numbered consecutively with the trial transcript.
25