Court Opinion

ID: 9826454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:57:35.969362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:03.964263
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chiee Justice McIver.
I concur in the result solely upon the ground that the Circuit Judge erred in commenting upon the first request to charge, when he used the following language: “I refuse that request because I don’t understand the Constitution that way; I don’t understand it to go any further than to allow the truth as a mitigation.” That language was calculated to mislead the jury into the belief that the truth of the libel could only operate as a mitigation of the punishment for the offense charged. Whereas I think the true construction of the Constitution is simply to make the truth of the alleged libel competent testimony, and not to declare what shall be the effect of such testimony. I do not, therefore, assent to the proposition contended for ■by the appellant — that the truth of the matters charged in the libel shall constitute a complete defense. On the contrary, I think such testimony can only operate as a circumstance tending to negative malice.
Messrs. Justices Gary and Jones concur in the result.