Fletcher v. State
| Decision Date | 10 October 1907 |
| Docket Number | 20,985 |
| Parties | Fletcher v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Clark Circuit Court; Harry C. Montgomery, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana, against Rufus A. Fletcher. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
James W. Fortune and Frank M. Mayfield, for appellant.
James Bingham, Attorney-General, Edward M. White, Henry M. Dowling and Alexander G. Cavins, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the crime of bigamy, and seeks a reversal of the judgment for an alleged error in overruling his motion for a new trial. The grounds of error relied upon are the giving of instructions two and four, at the request of the prosecuting attorney, and the refusal to give instructions eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen, as tendered by appellant. The court charged the jury in instruction two that if all other allegations of the indictment had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and nothing had been proved indicating that appellant's first marriage had been dissolved at the time his second marriage was entered into, the State was not required to introduce any evidence to show that the first marriage was undissolved in order to make out a prima facie case. Appellant's counsel, in criticizing this instruction, insist that, when a marriage has been consummated in accordance with the forms of law, it must be presumed that a former marriage has been legally dissolved, and the burden of showing that such marriage has not been dissolved rests upon the party seeking to impeach the last marriage. Public policy, social convenience and safety often justify a resort to certain presumptions, and for such reasons a presumption of the validity of a marriage duly solemnized has been indulged in collateral proceedings of a civil nature involving private rights. Teter v Teter (1885), 101 Ind. 129, 51 Am. Rep. 742; Boulden v. McIntire (1889), 119 Ind. 574, 12 Am. St. 453, 21 N.E. 445; Wenning v. Teeple (1896), 144 Ind. 189, 193, 41 N.E. 600.
In a criminal charge of bigamy, brought by the State against a party to the marriage assailed, there is no occasion for resorting to presumptions, and we find no authority to sustain the doctrine for which appellant contends. In such case the accused has opportunities, above all others, of knowing whether a divorce has been granted, and if so, where proof of the fact may be obtained. Public policy and convenience do not require the State, in this class of cases, to search all records extant for proof of a negative fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant; but when the State shows that the accused has been married to a woman who was still living at the time of his second marriage to another, it is incumbent upon him to show a divorce from such former wife. State v. Barrow (1879), 31 La. Ann. 691; Commonwealth v. Boyer (1863), 7 Allen 306; 4 Elliott, Evidence, § 2873; 3 Greenleaf, Evidence ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuquay v. State
...In Bennett v. State, 100 Miss. 684, 697, 698, 699, 703, 704, 56 So. 777, 779, the charge was bigamy, and the above quotation from Fletcher v. State, supra, is approved, there further declaration is made as follows: "The onus of proof is on him to show, as a matter of defense, that he had be......
-
Wright v. State
...search of all the court records to prove a negative fact that ought to be peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. Fletcher v. State, 169 Ind. 77, 81 N.E. 1083. Where there is no direct proof that a defendant's wife was alive at the time of his second marriage, the presumption of the......
-
LeSeuer v. State
...had not been divorced from the former wife. This proposition has been held adversely to appellant. Fletcher v. State (1907) 169 Ind. 77, 81 N. E. 1083, 124 Am. St. Rep. 219. The presumptions which obtain in civil cases with respect to marriage entered into according to the forms of law that......
-
Lesueur v. The State
...or the legitimacy of offspring of the marriage, is involved in collateral proceedings, find no place in a prosecution for bigamy. Fletcher v. State, supra. the commencement of the argument to the jury, appellant requested the court to give all instructions to the jury in writing. This was n......