Opinion ID: 2025227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: instructions regarding burden of proof

Text: Plaintiff next argues that the circuit court erred in refusing four of his jury instructions regarding the burden of proof. The first such instruction is based on Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 5.01 (2d ed. 1971) (IPI Civil 2d). The instruction submitted provides in part that under certain conditions a party's failure to produce a witness may permit an inference that the witness' testimony would have been unfavorable to that party. Plaintiff refers us to testimony of Randy Kirk, city editor of CN when the stories here in issue were published. Mr. Kirk testified that at 9 a.m. each day we have    an editorial board meeting and that such a meeting was held on the morning that the first allegedly libelous article was published. Plaintiff submits that defendant's failure to produce certain persons who attended this meeting justifies giving IPI Civil 2d No. 5.01. Kirk's testimony, however, indicated that he did not recall the details of the December 21 meeting and only presumes that he told those in attendance that the burglary story was to be published that day. His testimony does not indicate that he named the particular officers to be mentioned in the story or that plaintiff's name was even mentioned. Considering that there is virtually no evidence indicating that the others attending the meeting received any information incriminating to defendants, and further considering the fact that their recollection would have greatly lessened during the eight years that elapsed between the time of that meeting and the time of the trial, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the instruction. We agree with the holding in Maynard v. Irving Davis Co. (1970), 122 Ill. App.2d 28, that the circuit court should have wide discretion in determining whether to give this instruction. Plaintiff next submits that the circuit court erroneously refused his instruction No. 13, which states the burden of proof. A court does not err in refusing to give an instruction which is fully covered by another instruction which the court does give. ( Lau v. West Towns Bus Co. (1959), 16 Ill.2d 442, cert. denied (1959), 361 U.S. 127, 4 L.Ed.2d 180, 80 S.Ct. 256; Ergang v. Anderson (1941), 378 Ill. 312.) Such is the case here. The court properly defined both preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence when reading the issues instructions, and these are the definitions which plaintiff's instruction No. 13 sought to define. The court also articulated which burden of proof applied to which issues, indicating that plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence actual malice. Plaintiff next complains that the court refused his instruction which summarizes and defines what libel is. Plaintiff's instruction is similar to one given except that his instruction explicitly mentions pictures as a form of publication which can be libelous, whereas the instruction actually given refers only to written statements. We believe that in applying the instruction which they actually received, the jurors would have naturally considered the picture of Michael Reed in conjunction with his name and the caption appearing under the picture, which caption is entitled, Current Officers Implicated in the Report. In any event, any error in refusing plaintiff's instruction was harmless, since the court directed a finding that publication of the caption and photograph was defamatory as a matter of law.