THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, December 5, 1995 TAG: 9512050311
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A2 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 77 lines
The National Enquirer faces a trial over its story about actor Eddie Murphy's illegitimate son and the boy's mother because the Supreme Court refused to kill an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit Monday.
The court let stand rulings that said a California jury should decide whether the tabloid newspaper's report - its accuracy unchallenged - was ``newsworthy'' and therefore legally unassailable.
The Enquirer's invasion-of-privacy troubles began when it reported in September 1992 that Murphy and Tamara Hood had a 2-year-old son named Christian Edward Murphy, and that the film star had accepted financial responsibility for the child.
The newspaper reported that Murphy had bought a $376,000 house for the boy and his mother; established a million-dollar trust for the child; and initially sent Hood child-support payments of $2,000 monthly.
Murphy, who previously had denied having any more illegitimate children than the young girl he had acknowledged fathering, never challenged the Enquirer article. But Hood sued.
A state judge threw out her invasion-of-privacy claim, ruling that the Enquirer had a free-speech and free-press right to publish the truthful story.
But a California appeals court reversed part of the judge's ruling and reinstated part of Hood's lawsuit.
The appeals court suggested the article might not have been so offensive had it been less specific, saying: ``While the facts of (Murphy's financial) support may be newsworthy, the financial details may not.''
Under California privacy law, a publication that is truthful can be found to violate privacy rights if it includes facts that are private, offensive and not newsworthy.
``Newsworthiness'' is to be judged on the facts' ``social value,'' the depth of the article's intrusion into private affairs and the extent to which the person voluntarily agreed to public notoriety.
``We cannot say as a matter of law that no serious invasion of privacy resulted'' from the Enquirer's article, the appeals court ruled as it sent the case back to a trial court for a jury's consideration.
The California Supreme Court rejected the Enquirer's ensuing appeal last June.
The high court's action, taken without comment, was not a ruling on the merits and does not bar the justices from some day siding with the Enquirer. If the newspaper were to lose the lawsuit and appeal, the justices could review the same free-press arguments then. ILLUSTRATION: COURT ACTIONS
In other matters Monday, the court:
Rejected Colorado's attempt to deny Medicaid-funded abortions for
women impregnated by rape or incest by letting stand a ruling that
forces states participating in the federal Medicaid program to pay
for such operations.
Turned down a Minneapolis-based charter airline's challenge to
federal requirements, to take effect Feb. 1, on the length of
airline flight attendants' work shifts and minimum rest periods
between flights.
Refused to hear the appeal of celebrity divorce lawyer Marvin
Mitchelson, convicted in 1993 for failing to report almost $2
million in income on his federal tax returns.
Refused to reinstate a $275,000 libel award won, and then lost,
by an unsuccessful mayoral candidate against a Fayetteville, Ark.,
newspaper, the Northwest Arkansas Times.
Heard arguments in the unusual case of a Georgia death row inmate
who says he wants to be executed in a way that doesn't interfere
with donating his organs. At issue is whether state prisoners can
forfeit their right to appeal in federal court by waiting too long.
KEYWORDS: SUPREME COURT APPEAL DECISIONS by CNB