People v. McDowell (1886) · DecisionDepot

People v. McDowell

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Sep 30, 1886 No. No. 20227Published

Before: Ross

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify on the meaning of a libelous article, which is a question for the jury, and by instructing the jury that they could ignore the statutory definition of criminal libel.

Issues

Whether it was error to permit a witness to testify as to whom a libelous article referred.
Whether the jury may ignore the statutory definition of criminal libel.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It was for the jury to say to whom the article referred.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The defendant was convicted of a criminal libel for publishing in a newspaper an article reflecting upon the character and conduct of one Andrew J. Clunie. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Ross, J. The defendant is entitled to a new trial. The court below erred in permitting the witness Andrew J. Clunie to be asked and to answer the question: “ Please look at page 6 of this paper and state to whom the article contained upon that page under the heading ‘Sharks and Humans' (being the article alleged to be libelous) has reference.” It was for the jury to say to whom the article referred.

The court below also erred in instructing the jury as it did, in effect, that they might, if they thought proper, ignore the law defining libel. While in actions for criminal libel the jury are to determine the law as well as the facts, they are, of course, not at liberty to determine that [195]what the statute declares to be a criminal libel is not such.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

McKinstry, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

People v. McDowell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief