Court Opinion

ID: 9572183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:39:22.897053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:47.438960
License: Public Domain

concurring specially. On my first consideration of this case I approved, with grave doubt as to its correctness, the opinion as written. Pending the motion to rehear I continued to consider the principle enunciated therein and at times felt that when the matter was again before me I would be unable to maintain my former position. However, after a thorough study of the case on rehearing, and after having carefully read each of the briefs of all the counsel and amici curiae, which indeed reflect a great deal of study and work, I am more firmly wedded to the position that evidence of good character is alone sufficient to overcome positive testimony to the effect that a party was guilty in connection with a material issue in the case of base, dishonorable or criminal conduct. This rule of evidence *489has its origin in Code § 38-202 which provides as follows: “The general character of the parties, and especially their conduct in other transactions, are irrelevant matter, unless the nature of the action involves such character and renders necessary or proper the investigation of such conduct.” This Code section applies to both criminal and civil cases. The annotations of cases under it are of both classes. In Shropshire v. State, 81 Ga. 589, cited and quoted from in the opinion of the court, evidence of good character in a criminal case is held to be a substantive fact, like any other fact tending to establish the defendant’s innocence, and should be so regarded by the court and jury. In German American Mut. Life Assn. v. Farley, 102 Ga. 720, cited in the opinion of the court, it is held that evidence of good character was admissible “to rebut any inference unfavorable to him [the assured] which might have been deduced from the evidence offered against him.” In Shropshire v. State it is held as follows: “Evidence of good character, when offered by the defendant in a criminal case, is always relevant and therefore is always material; and if it is material, in our opinion it should go to the jury and have such weight as the jury sees proper to give it. If it is material, it should be considered by the jury, not merely where the balance of the testimony in the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or not, but where such evidence of good character may of itself generate a doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.”
The Farley case quoted with approval McNabb v. Lockhart & Thomas, 18 Ga. 495, wherein it is ruled as follows: “In civil cases such evidence is always admissible when the nature of the action involves the general character of the parties.” The Farley case, like the one here under consideration, involved the truth of certain answers made by the insured to the defendants in an application for insurance. If the answers there were false, the insured had attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the insurance company. This is also true here. It was there held: “We think the issue in this case involved directly the character of the assured. He was charged with having perpetrated a gross fraud upon the insurance company. Evidence of his good character was admissible to rebut any inference unfavorable to him which might have-been deduced from the evidence offered against him.” *490Here, as in the Farley case, the insured, after having made his application for insurance, died. Here, as in the Farley case, the insurance company contends that the answers of the insured were false. Since evidence of good character in the Farley case was held to be admissible to rebut any inference unfavorable to him which might have been deduced from the evidence offered against him, evidence of good character here must be held to authorize the same effect. The evidence offered against the plaintiff in the Farley case was the signed statement of the insured containing answers shown to be false. The evidence offered against the plaintiff here was the signed statement of the insured containing answers shown to be false. The ruling in the Farley case on this subject cannot be held to be obiter or immaterial. While there were other issues involved in the Farley case, nevertheless, in order to affirm the case, it was necessary for the Supreme Court to hold that the evidence of good character on this question was admissible. One of the reasons why it was held to be admissible was that the insured was charged with an attempt to perpetrate a gross fraud on the insurance company, and evidence of his good character was admissible for the purpose of rebutting the evidence thereof.
I therefore think that this case is controlled by Code § 38-202 and the Supreme Court cases generally on the subject of the evidence of good character, such as Shropshire v. State and cases there cited, and German American Mutual Life Assn. v. Farley, supra, and cases there cited. There is of course a distinction between criminal and civil cases as to the amount of mental conviction necessary to reach a verdict of guilty. In a criminal case the jury must be satisfied to a moral and reasonable certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case the plaintiff must make out its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the fact sought to be established. Here the insurance company seeks to establish a fraud. On this issue, the burden of proof is on it to establish the fraud. I think the guilt of fraud in a civil case may be rebutted by the substantive fact of good character, which is “like any other fact tending to establish the defendant’s innocence” and is held to be sufficient to generate a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. If such evidence will generate a reasonable doubt *491as to guilt in a criminal case, I think it logically follows that it may prevent the party upon whom the burden of proof lies from establishing such guilt in a civil case. The origin of the rule of evidence in both civil and criminal cases comes from the same Code section. In both its weight and credit is for the jury to determine. Henderson v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 39 Ga. App. 609, supra, overruled by the opinion of the court herein, holds that evidence of good character under such circumstances is admissible but further holds that “. . . proof of the good character of the insured may be relevant and admissible for consideration by the jury in determining the preponderance of evidence in regard to such defense, yet the testimony of witnesses who are uncontradicted and are not otherwise impeached or discredited, and who swear positively to facts sustaining the defense, should not be discarded by the jury merely because of evidence of the insured’s previous good character. In such a case the evidence as to the insured’s character, honesty and integrity would not, as against the other evidence, be sufficient to make the question of his fraud in procuring the policy an issue of fact for determination by the jury so as to prevent the direction of a verdict in favor of the insurer upon such defense.” This excerpt sounds somewhat like the charge of the court contained in Shropshire v. State, supra. No reference is made anywhere in the Henderson case to the Shropshire case or the Farley case. As it is a substantive fact, as seems to be held without qualification “like any other fact” it ought to be sufficient to make an issue for jury determination.
In the interest of brevity, I will not in this special concurrence undertake to distinguish the cases cited in the briefs of counsel for the insurance company and the brief of amicus curiae filed in this case. These cases and the argument of counsel in support of their contentions are very logical. A close case is presented, with cited precedents on both sides, which appear to support the contentions of each. As previously stated, after a thorough study of the entire subject, I think evidence of good character is sufficient, if so found by the jury, to overcome the positive testimony to the effect that a party was, guilty in connection with a material issue in the case of base, dishonorable or criminal conduct. Accordingly, I concur with the opinion of the majority reversing the case on this ground.