Samuel Anderson Sr V Ben Altom Yoanna Campos Jessica Colon John Durr

Key Facts

Issues

• Anderson argues the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) does not apply because Steven Wheeler's report to the police that Anderson 'may commit a crime' was a false police report not protected by the First Amendment. The court must determine if such a speculative statement falls outside TCPA protections.
• Anderson contends he established a prima facie case for defamation by showing Wheeler's statement caused harm. The court must assess whether the statement 'may commit a crime' constituted a verifiable false fact or merely speculative opinion, which would preclude a defamation claim under TCPA standards.

Holdings

• The court held that the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) applies to Anderson's defamation claim because Wheeler's report to the police about Anderson potentially committing a crime constituted an 'exercise of the right of free speech' under the TCPA's statutory definition, which includes communications regarding matters of public concern like crime.
• The court determined that Wheeler's statement—speculating Anderson 'may commit a crime or become some sort of threat'—was a predictive opinion rather than a verifiable statement of fact, meaning Anderson failed to present prima facie evidence of defamation under TCPA step two.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The court held that Wheeler's statement that Anderson 'may commit a crime' was a predictive opinion, not a verifiable statement of fact, and therefore could not support a defamation claim. This aligns with the principle that unverifiable assertions about future events are protected as opinions under defamation law.
• The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) provides a three-step procedure for dismissing defamation claims based on the exercise of free speech. The court applied the TCPA's statutory definition of 'exercise of the right of free speech' as communication regarding a matter of public concern, including the report of a crime.

Precedent Name

• In re Lipsky
• Samples v. Estate of Brown
• Youngkin v. Hines
• In re O.S.
• Tatum v. Dallas Morning News
• McShirley v. Lucas
• Brady v. Klentzman
• Steinbagen v. MC Trilogy Tex., LLC
• Dallas Morning News v. Hall
• Walgreens v. McKenzie

Cited Statute

• Texas Citizens Participation Act
• United States Constitution, First Amendment
• Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Judge Name

• Sudderth
• Walker
• Bassel

Passage Text

• Statements that are not verifiable as false are not statements of fact and cannot be defamatory. Tatum, 554 S.W.3d at 624–25, 638 (noting further that, '[i]n a defamation case, the threshold question is whether the words used are reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning' and '[m]eaning is a question of law'); see Lilith Fund for Reprod. Equity v. Dickson, 662 S.W.3d 355, 363 (Tex. 2023) (reviewing TCPA motions to dismiss and noting that '[w]hether an alleged defamatory statement constitutes an opinion rather than a verifiable falsity is a question of law').
• The commission or report of a crime has long been recognized as a matter of public concern. See, e.g., Samples v. Estate of Brown, No. 07-23-00225-CV, 2024 WL 3249335, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 28, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that the defendant's 'theories on [the decedent's] cause of death were in connection with a matter of public concern because they involved a crime'); McShirley, 2024 WL 976512, at *4 ('It is well settled that the commission of a crime is a matter of public concern under the TCPA.'); Austin v. Amundson, No. 05-22-00066-CV, 2022 WL 1694591, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 15, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) ('[R]eporting a crime to law enforcement is a matter of public concern.')
• Because (1) Wheeler's statement fell within the TCPA's definition of an 'Exercise of the right of free speech,' see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 27.001(3); and (2) Wheeler's speculation about a future crime could not support a defamation claim, we will affirm.