STATE оf South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Michael CLEMENTS, Defendant and Appellee.
No. 26477.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
June 12, 2013.
2013 S.D. 43 | 832 N.W.2d 485
Marty J. Jaekley, Attorney General, Frank Geaghan, Assistant Attornеy General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant.
Marshall C. Lovrien of Bantz, Gosch, & Cremer, LLC, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and aрpellee.
SEVERSON, Justice.
[¶ 1.] The State charged Michael Clements with bigamy. The trial court dis-missed
BACKGROUND
[¶ 2.] The facts in this case are undisputed. Michael Clements married Kristi Anderson in Ashley, North Dakota on December 6, 2009. Anderson filed for divorce from Clements on April 15, 2011. Before the divorce was finalized, on June 14, 2011, Clements and Alicia Bjerke applied for and were granted a marriage license in Brown County, South Dakota. On the same day, Clements and Bjerke participated in a marriage ceremony at the Brown County Clerk of Courts office. Both Clements and Bjerke consented to participate in the ceremony, and a solemnization of the ceremony occurred. The marriage license was filed with the Brоwn County Register of Deeds on June 15, 2011.
[¶ 3.] On August 4, 2011, the State charged Clements with bigamy in violation of
[¶ 4.] The State filed an information on January 30, 2012, again charging Clements with bigamy in violation of
[¶ 5.] The State appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss the information under
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 6.] The sufficiency of an indictment or information is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Fisher, 2013 S.D. 23, ¶ 28, 828 N.W.2d 795, 803 (citing State v. Goodroad, 521 N.W.2d 433, 434-36 (S.D.1994)). We review a trial court‘s interрretation of a statute de novo because the interpretation of a statute is a question of law. Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 2000 S.D. 85, ¶ 49, 612 N.W.2d 600, 611 (quoting Moss v. Guttormson, 1996 S.D. 76, ¶ 10, 551 N.W.2d 14, 17).
DISCUSSION
[¶ 7.]
Any person who, while married to another presently living person, marries any other person, is guilty of bigamy. The provisions of this section do not apply to:
- Any person, if that person‘s husband or wife has been absent for five successive years and is not known to be living by such person;
- Any person, if that person‘s husband or wife has absented himself
or herself from such spouse by being outside the United States, cоntinuously for at least five years; - Any person, if that person‘s marriage has been pronounced void, annulled, or dissolved by a competent court; or
- Any person, presently married, who believes, in good faith, and has reason to believe, that the marriage has been pronоunced void, annulled, or dissolved by a competent court.
Bigamy is a Class 6 felony.
[¶ 8.] Clements argues that because a bigamous marriage is void ab initio according to
[¶ 9.] Dismissing the information on the basis that bigamy is a legal impossibility nullifies the statute providing for criminal prosecution of bigamy. We construe statutes together to give legal effect to all of the provisions in the statutеs. See In re Collins, 85 S.D. at 382, 182 N.W.2d at 339. When presented with similar cases, other courts have determined that legal impossibility cannot be a defense to bigamy. “In other words, civil statutes rendering bigamous marriages void ab initio do not exonerate defendants charged with bigamy[.]” United States v. Ali, 557 F.3d 715, 721 (6th Cir.2009). In one such case, the Missouri Supreme Court held:
[I]t is the appearing to contract a second marriage and going through the ceremony which сonstitutes the crime of bigamy; otherwise it could never exist in ordinary cases, as a previous marriage always renders null and void a marriagе that is celebrated afterward by either of the parties during the lifetime of the other.
State v. Eden, 350 Mo. 932, 169 S.W.2d 342, 345-46 (1943) (citation omitted). In another case, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that “[a] man takes a wife lawfully, when the contract is lawfully made. He takes a wife unlawfully, when the contract is unlawfully made—and this unlawful contract the law punishes.” State v. Patterson, 24 N.C. (2 Ired.) 346, 356 (N.C.1842).
[¶ 10.] In addition, the Kansas Supreme Court noted, “[a]doption of the rule pronounced by the trial court would effectively erase the crime of bigamy from our law, an unreasonable interpretation and one clearly contrary to the specific legislative intent.” State v. Fitzgerald, 240 Kan. 187, 726 P.2d 1344, 1347 (1986). The court held that “when a person enters into a purported marriage contract or relationship at a time when the person already has a living spouse, the crime of bigamy has been committed.” Id. In order to give meaning and effect to the enactment of
CONCLUSION
[¶ 11.] We reverse the trial court‘s decision to dismiss the information against Clements, and we rеmand for further proceedings.
[¶ 12.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER and WILBUR, Justices, concur.
Notes
SDCL 25-1-8 provides:
A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the life of a former husband or wife of such person with any person other than such former husband or wife, is null and void from the beginning, unless the former marriage has been annullеd or dissolved, or unless such former husband or wife was absent and not known to such person to be living for the space of five successive yeаrs immediately preceding such subsequent marriage, or was generally reputed and was believed by such person to be dead at the time such subsequent marriage was contracted, in either of which cases the subsequent marriage is valid until its nullity is adjudged by a competent tribunal.