Background
Eric Posey performed in a drag show at a June 2022 Pride event in Coeur d’Alene City Park. Summer Bushnell, a local internet blogger who did not attend the performance, received a recording and posted videos claiming Posey had exposed his genitals to minors. She posted an edited version that blurred his crotch, said the blur covered “fully exposed genitals,” and included footage of children from another performance in a way that implied they were reacting to Posey.
Posey sued for defamation and defamation by implication. The evidence included Bushnell’s admission that she knew it was false to say she had seen Posey’s penis. A jury found for Posey, awarding $926,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. Bushnell, proceeding pro se on appeal, raised ten alleged errors.
The Court’s Holding
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. It declined to consider nine of Bushnell’s issues because her briefing lacked cogent argument and valid authority, misstated the record, relied on fabricated or inaccurate quotations and citations, or raised issues not preserved below. The Court declined to dismiss the entire appeal and imposed no additional monetary sanction, although it stressed that litigants must verify their filings and that generative AI does not excuse inaccurate legal briefing.
The Court addressed Bushnell’s remaining contention that Posey was a limited-purpose public figure. Assuming without deciding that the district court might have erred on that question, any error was harmless. The jury had been instructed that punitive damages required clear and convincing proof that Bushnell acted with actual malice, and it specifically found that she knew her statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth. That finding would satisfy the actual-malice requirement applicable to a limited-purpose public figure.
Key Takeaways
- Unsupported, fabricated, or materially inaccurate authority can cause appellate issues to be disregarded.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same briefing and preservation rules as represented parties.
- A jury’s actual-malice finding can render harmless an asserted error over public-figure status where that finding supplies the heightened fault requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision is a forceful warning that parties must independently verify factual assertions, quotations, and legal citations, including material generated with AI assistance. The Court treated the briefing defects as serious, but declined further sanctions because it had already rejected most of Bushnell’s appeal and Posey did not seek appellate attorney fees.
For defamation litigants, the case illustrates that a public-figure classification dispute may not warrant reversal when the verdict necessarily establishes actual malice under the governing definition.