State v. Holm case brief summary
137 P.3d 726 (Utah 2006)
FACTS:
-The defendant was legally married to Suzie Stubbs in 1986.
-After this marriage, D participated in a religious marriage ceremony with Wendy Holm.
-The defendant also participated in another religious marriage ceremony with then-sixteen-year-old Ruth Stubbs, who was Suzie Stubbs's sister.
-After the ceremony, Ruth moved into Holm's house, where her sister Suzie Stubbs, Wendy Holm, and their children also resided.
-By the time Ruth turned 18, she had conceived two children with the defendant, the second of which was born approximately three months after her eighteenth birthday.
-The defendant was arrested and charged with three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old, and one count of bigamy.
-Stubbs testified that although she knew that the marriage was not a legal civil marriage under the law, she believed that she was married.
-At the close of the State's case, the defendant moved for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss, arguing that the jury should not be allowed to consider whether he violated the bigamy statute by purporting to marry Stubbs.
-The jury returned a guilty verdict on each of the charges, indicating on a special verdict form that the defendant was guilty of bigamy both because he 'purported to marry Ruth Stubbs' and because he had 'cohabited with Ruth Stubbs.
ISSUES:
1. Do bigamy laws violate free exercise or due process under the law? (No)
2. Does a party purport to marry and thus violate bigamy law by participation in a private religious ceremony because the form of that ceremony-though not its intent-resembled what we think of as a wedding? (Yes)
3. Does an intent to marry for purposes of bigamy require an application for a marriage license? (No)
RULES:
-Bigamy laws do not violate free exercise or due process under the law.
-A party purports to marry and thus violates bigamy law by participation in a private religious ceremony because the form of that ceremony-though not its intent-resembled what we think of as a wedding.
- An intent to marry for purposes of bigamy does not require an application for a marriage license.
ANALYSIS:
1. “marry” in the bigamy statute making a married person guilty of bigamy when the person purports to marry another person includes legally recognized marriages as well as those that are not sanctioned by the state.
2. irrevocable ordinance of state constitution prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages does more than prohibit state from giving formal legal recognition to polygamous marriages;
3. The defendant had no fundamental due process liberty interest to engage in polygamy by purporting to marry his wife's sixteen-year-old sister;
4. A bigamy conviction did not violate First Amendment right to freedom of association;
5. The bigamy statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied;
6. Expert testimony relating to the history of polygamy in Utah and the social health of these types of communities could be excluded; and
7. The prohibition against sexual contact with a minor did not violate equal protection by distinguishing between married and unmarried persons. (Compare to Lawrence v. Texas).
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
137 P.3d 726 (Utah 2006)
FACTS:
-The defendant was legally married to Suzie Stubbs in 1986.
-After this marriage, D participated in a religious marriage ceremony with Wendy Holm.
-The defendant also participated in another religious marriage ceremony with then-sixteen-year-old Ruth Stubbs, who was Suzie Stubbs's sister.
-After the ceremony, Ruth moved into Holm's house, where her sister Suzie Stubbs, Wendy Holm, and their children also resided.
-By the time Ruth turned 18, she had conceived two children with the defendant, the second of which was born approximately three months after her eighteenth birthday.
-The defendant was arrested and charged with three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old, and one count of bigamy.
-Stubbs testified that although she knew that the marriage was not a legal civil marriage under the law, she believed that she was married.
-At the close of the State's case, the defendant moved for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss, arguing that the jury should not be allowed to consider whether he violated the bigamy statute by purporting to marry Stubbs.
-The jury returned a guilty verdict on each of the charges, indicating on a special verdict form that the defendant was guilty of bigamy both because he 'purported to marry Ruth Stubbs' and because he had 'cohabited with Ruth Stubbs.
ISSUES:
1. Do bigamy laws violate free exercise or due process under the law? (No)
2. Does a party purport to marry and thus violate bigamy law by participation in a private religious ceremony because the form of that ceremony-though not its intent-resembled what we think of as a wedding? (Yes)
3. Does an intent to marry for purposes of bigamy require an application for a marriage license? (No)
RULES:
-Bigamy laws do not violate free exercise or due process under the law.
-A party purports to marry and thus violates bigamy law by participation in a private religious ceremony because the form of that ceremony-though not its intent-resembled what we think of as a wedding.
- An intent to marry for purposes of bigamy does not require an application for a marriage license.
ANALYSIS:
1. “marry” in the bigamy statute making a married person guilty of bigamy when the person purports to marry another person includes legally recognized marriages as well as those that are not sanctioned by the state.
2. irrevocable ordinance of state constitution prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages does more than prohibit state from giving formal legal recognition to polygamous marriages;
3. The defendant had no fundamental due process liberty interest to engage in polygamy by purporting to marry his wife's sixteen-year-old sister;
4. A bigamy conviction did not violate First Amendment right to freedom of association;
5. The bigamy statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied;
6. Expert testimony relating to the history of polygamy in Utah and the social health of these types of communities could be excluded; and
7. The prohibition against sexual contact with a minor did not violate equal protection by distinguishing between married and unmarried persons. (Compare to Lawrence v. Texas).
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment