This case is one of first impression in New Jersey. It raises the question of when a court has jurisdiction over the offense of bigamy.
Accepting the facts as alleged by the complainаnt, it appears that Abdul Razzak Ishaque, the defendant, married Evelin Mendez in a civil ceremony in Elizabeth on February 9, 1993, and cohabited thereafter with his'wife at their residence in the city. Sоme three years later he traveled to Pakistan, where on August 16, 1996 in South Karachi, a ceremony of marriage took place between defendant and Abide Suleman, the cоmplainant. There are allegations the marriage had been arranged by the defendant’s father so that the complainant could obtain permanent resident status in the United Stаtes, but those contentions need not be addressed further for purposes of the within motion. After the defendant returned to New Jersey, the complainant also traveled here аnd on February 25, 1997 swore out a complaint in the Elizabeth Municipal Court charging him -with bigamy, N.J.S.A.
The complainant’s attorney has prosecuted the matter, thereby raising a prеliminary concern that the dictates of State v. Storm, 141 N.J. 245,
For a municipal court to provide an effectivе forum, both the complainant and the defendant must trust the impartiality of the proceedings. To earn that trust, the prosecutor, like the judge, must be impartial. Inevitably, private prosecutions undermine confidence in the integrity of the proceedings. Id. at 254,661 A.2d 790 .
It appears that Mr. Orr’s obligations to Abide Suleman as her private attorney create at the least an appearance that he is unable to act as a private prosecutor with impartiality. The question has not been addressed by the parties, however, and the court will thеrefore not base its decision on the issue.
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-la provides that “a married person is guilty of bigamy, a disorderly persons offense, if he contracts or purports to contract аnother marriage” (none of the exceptions being applicable here). In most reported decisions under the predecessor statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:92-1, both marriages took place in New Jersey, State v. De Meo, 35 N.J.Super. 168,
Genеrally, contracting a second marriage and going through that ceremony when one is legally married to another is said to constitute the offense of bigamy. 11 Am.Jur£d, Bigamy' § 9 (1997).
The basic principle that jurisdiction over crimes is local and that no state can punish for a crime committed in another state applies to prosecutions for bigamy; accoi’dingly such prosecutions must ordinarily be brought in the jurisdiction where the second marriage — the crime — took place. Id. § 25 at 332.
The place where the second marriage is entered into or solemnized is the jurisdiction which determines if a criminal offense has occurred, for the act of entering into that second marriage is what has offended the sovereignty of that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the first marriage and the jurisdiction where the offender may subsequently be found are not similarly offended. The place of the second marriage is the place which seeks to prevent such happening — that is the place where the offense has occurred. The law of that place is the law which defines the offense.
In the absence of some special statutory provision, the place where the second marriage was performed is material, since only the state in which the second marriage was sоlemnized has jurisdiction, even if cohabitation in the state of the prior marriage follows the second marriage. 10 C.J.S., Bigamy and Related Offenses § 5d (1995) at 86-87.
Under statutes similar to ours, courts have consistently ruled that they arе without jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant for a bigamous marriage solemnized in another state. See Green v. State, 232 Ind. 596,
The jurisdiction referred to in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice definition of the elements of an offense is territorial jurisdiction. N.J.S.A. 2C:l-3. Likewise, the jurisdiction of a
The complainant urges that the Code has expanded New Jersey’s criminal jurisdiction, citing N.J.S.A. 2C:l-3a and State v. Sanders, 230 N.J.Super. 233,
Further, although N.J.S.A 2C:l-3a(4) speaks of conduct constituting complicity in “the commission of, or an attempt, or conspiracy to commit, an offense in another jurisdiction which also is an offense under the law of this State”, complicity does not apply here. Complicity under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 imposes liability upon one person for the conduct of аnother person under circumstances where one is accountable for the other’s conduct. By urging complicity here, plaintiff confuses that which holds another liable from thаt which holds a defendant liable. Whatever conduct the defendant engaged in prior to departing for Pakistan, even if it
Finally, the “reasonable relation to a legitimate interest of this state” under N.J.S.A. 2C:l-3a(6) needs to be addressed. The bigamy statute reflects the moral standards of the сommunity, evidencing a strong public policy favoring stability in marriage and thereby condemning those whose behavior demonstrates “a dangerous disposition to plural marriage”. Yol. II: Commentary, The N.J. Penal Code 250, (Finаl Report of N.J. Criminal Law Revision Commission, 1971). The public interest underlying our statute seeks to prevent persons while married from entering into other marriages. It does not seek to protect New Jersey residents from the consequences of such conduct, other than to criminalize that which the married person has done. It represents a decision that is best accomplished by barring that individual from contracting the second marriage in this jurisdiction. It seeks to prevent that act from happening, and if it happens here, the offense of bigamy has occurred. If it happens elsewhere, the offense has not occurred here. It cannot be said under N.J.S.A. 2C:l-3a(6) that our bigamy statute “expressly prohibits (such) conduct (when it occurs) outside” New Jersey. The validity of the marriage which took place here, which New Jersey has a legitimate interest in protecting, has not been affected by what occurrеd in Pakistan.
Bigamy is not a continuing offense; the offense is committed the moment the second marriage ceremony takes place. Nothing in our code suggests the Legislature intendеd to make a bigamous marriage contracted outside New Jersey an offense against the laws of this state, nor to expand the jurisdiction of this state’s courts to prosecute one for committing bigamy elsewhere.