STATE V. HOLM
137 P.3d 726 (Utah 2006)


PROCEDURAL POSTURE Defendant was convicted in the Fifth District Court, St. George County, G. Rand Beacham, J., of bigamy and sexual contact with minor. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals certified appeal for transfer.

FACTS: D was legally married to Suzie Stubbs in 1986. Subsequent to this marriage, D participated in a religious marriage ceremony with Wendy Holm. D also participated in another religious marriage ceremony with then-sixteen-year-old Ruth Stubbs, 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 eighteen, she had conceived two children with D, the second of which was born approximately three months after her eighteenth birthday. D 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 in chief, D 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 D was guilty of bigamy both because he 'purported to marry Ruth Stubbs' and because he had 'cohabited with Ruth Stubbs.

ISSUE: Do bigamy laws violate free exercise or due process under the law? 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? Does an intent to marry for purposes of bigamy require an application for a marriage license?

RULE: 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.


HOLDING:
The Supreme Court, Durrant, J., held that:
1 “marry” in the bigamy statute making a married person guilty of bigamy when the person purports to marry another person includes both legally recognized marriages and those that are not state-sanctioned;
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 defendant had no fundamental due process liberty interest to engage in polygamy by purporting to marry his wife's sixteen-year-old sister;
4 bigamy conviction did not violate First Amendment right to freedom of association;
5 bigamy statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied;
6 expert testimony relating to the history of polygamy in Utah and the social health of polygamous communities could be excluded; and
7 prohibition against sexual contact with minor did not violate equal protection by distinguishing between married and unmarried persons.