 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jernigan v. Humphrey3/28/2002
d gist could reasonably be interpreted as declaring or implying an assertion of fact." Roussel v. Robbins, 688 So. 2d 714, 723 (Miss. 1996) (quoting Keohane v. Wilkerson, 859 P.2d 291, 297 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993), aff'd sub nom. Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293 (Colo. 1994)). The majority relies on Ferguson v. Watkins, 448 So. 2d 271 (Miss. 1984), in which we stated that defamation "must ... not be the product of innuendo, speculation or conjecture." Id. at 275. This principle has not, however, prevented this Court from finding that actionable defamation may be the product of statements reasonably creating in the mind of the hearer the implication that a crime has been committed. See Journal Publ'g Co. v. McCullough, 743 So. 2d 352, 360 (Miss. 1999) (holding that whether the overall structure of disputed newspaper articles, especially the prominence of a tagline emphasizing the arguably false fact that the chancery court clerk owned a vehicle seized in a drug bust, could reasonably create the implication in the mind of the reader that the clerk was somehow connected to illegal drug activity was an issue for the jury). See also McCullough v. Cook, 679 So. 2d 627, 632 (Miss. 1996) (recognized that an underlying implication drawn from facially true statements may be sufficient to render the statements false).
. It was for the jury to determine what should have been reasonably understood by the persons present when the statement was made. Krebs v. McNeal, 222 Miss. 560, 76 So. 2d 693, 701 (1955). Clearly, members of the district attorney's office interpreted Jernigan's statements as meaning a crime had been committed because they launched an investigation into the incident. Keeping in mind that we are required to give Humphrey the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence, I believe reasonable minds could find that a defamatory statement had been made. I would affirm the verdict of the jury.
DIAZ, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
|