Beaumont Enterprise & Journal v. Smith

• Decision Date: 06 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. C-3517,C-3517
• Citation: Beaumont Enterprise & Journal v. Smith, 687 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1985)
• Parties: BEAUMONT ENTERPRISE & JOURNAL et al., Petitioner, v. Clyde E. SMITH, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 729

687 S.W.2d 729

BEAUMONT ENTERPRISE & JOURNAL et al., Petitioner, v.Clyde E. SMITH, Respondent.

No. C-3517.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 6, 1985.

Rehearing Denied April 24, 1985.

Fulbright & Jaworski, Royce R. Till, Jeff Dykes and Roger Townsend, Houston, for petitioner.

Helm, Pletcher & Hogan, George E. Pletcher and J. Donald Bowen, Houston, for respondent.

ROBERTSON, Justice.

Judge Clyde E. Smith sued the Beaumont Enterprise & Journal and its reporter, Linda Gilchriest, for libel.A jury trial ended in a mistrial; thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion.Holding that there were fact issues presented, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for a new trial.677 S.W.2d 176.We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

The article which forms the basis for Judge Smith's libel claim was written by Linda Gilchriest and published in the Beaumont Enterprise and Journal.¹Judge Smith's primary allegation is that the article accused him of selecting the grand jury panel and therefore that it accused him of illegal and unethical conduct.SeeTex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. arts. 19.01-19.41, setting forth the requirements for organization of a grand jury.

The issue on appeal is whether the defendants met their burden for summary judgment of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and that their defense is established as a matter of law.Tex.R.Civ.P. 166-A;City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671(Tex.1979);Gibbs v. General Motors Corp., 450 S.W.2d 827(Tex.1970).Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-moving party, Judge Smith; and any doubts must be resolved in his favor.Hudnall v. Tyler Bank and Trust Company, 458 S.W.2d 183(Tex.1970).

The defendants contend that, as a matter of law, the article was not defamatory, and that it was not reasonably capable of bearing the meaning Judge Smith attributes to it.We are of the opinion that the article contains statements which are at least ambiguous in their meaning.Thus, we cannot say that, as a matter of law, the article is not defamatory.It is for the jury to determine the meaning which the article would convey to an ordinary person.Denton Publishing Company v. Boyd, 460 S.W.2d 881, 884(Tex.1970).

The defendants further contend that the record does not contain any proof of "actual malice."Therefore, they argue that their defense is established as a matter of law because Judge Smith, as a public official, must prove as an essential element of his cause of action that a defamatory false statement was made with "actual malice."SeeDoubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751, 753(Tex.1984)."Actual malice" means "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."Doubleday, 674 S.W.2d at 753, citingNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686(1964).

For summary judgment, the burden is on the defendants to show the absence of actual malice.Jackson v. Cheatwood, 445 S.W.2d 513, 514(Tex.1969).The defendants rely on Gilchriest's affidavit that she believed the article to be factually accurate and true.Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166-A provides that a summary judgment may be based on the uncontroverted testimonial evidence of an interested party provided that the evidence is "clear, positive, direct, otherwise credible ... and could have been readily controverted."Gilchriest's affidavit as to her own state of mind is not evidence that could have been readily controverted; therefore it is not evidence that will support a summary judgment.SeeWise v. Dallas Southwest Media Corp., 596 S.W.2d 533, 535-536(Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.);see alsoLewisville State Bank v. Blanton, 525 S.W.2d 696(Tex.1975).

The defendants have failed to establish that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.The fact issues which warranted a jury trial in the first instance remain as fact issues and they must be determined by a jury.Summary judgment was improper.We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Dissenting opinion by GONZALEZ, J., in which SPEARS, J., joins.

GONZALEZ, Justice, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.The court is correct that the issue on appeal is whether the Enterprise established its defense as a matter of law to warrant the granting...