State v. La Bounty
| Decision Date | 03 August 1911 |
| Citation | 64 Wash. 415,116 P. 1073 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. LA BOUNTY. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.
Edward La Bounty was convicted of adultery, and he appeals. Reversed, with instructions to dismiss.
P. V Davis, for appellant.
John F Murphy, Hugh M. Caldwell, and Herbert B. Butler, for the State.
The appellant, a boy 18 years of age, was tried for committing the crime of adultery with a married woman 28 years old, the mother of three children, having been married 12 years. He was convicted as charged, sentence and judgment followed, and he brings the case here on appeal.
Many errors are assigned, but with the view we take of one, it will not be necessary to discuss the others. Section 2457, 1 Rem. & Bal. Code, is as follows 'Whenever any married woman shall have sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both shall be guilty of adultery and punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than $1,000: Provided, that no prosecution for violation of this section shall be commenced except on complaint of the husband or wife, nor after one year from the commission of the offense.'
The information in this case was sworn to by the prosecuting attorney of King county. The question of the sufficiency of the information was duly raised by instructions offered and refused, the court holding that the information was sufficient, as filed by the prosecuting attorney. The contention of the appellant is that, under the statute, no one but the husband or wife could institute criminal proceedings for adultery; while the contention of the respondent is that the statute is not to be literally construed, but that its requirements are met if the husband or wife shall cause the proceedings to be instituted.
The pertinent question is, Was the provision of the statute above cited intended to be mandatory in its nature, making a formal complaint by the husband or wife a prerequisite to the procedure prescribed? or was it intended simply to be a rule of evidence, the sufficiency of which could be submitted to the jury as a question of fact? We are inclined to the view first above expressed. Before the passage of this law by the Legislature of 1909, the procedure governing this particular crime was not differentiated from the procedure in criminal actions generally; but the evident intention of the Legislature which incorporated the proviso in the law, was to prohibit intermeddling, evidently regarding the commission of this particular act as a crime against the husband or wife personally rather...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stevenson
... ... of Washington, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota ... The following cases illustrate the diversity of opinion ... relating to the competency of the complaining witness under ... like statutes: State v. La Bounty, 64 Wash. 415, 116 ... P. 1073; State v. Astin, 106 Wash. 336, 180 P. 394, ... 4 A. L. R. 1336; State v. Roth, 17 Iowa, 336; ... Bush v. Workman, 64 Iowa, 205, 19 N.W. 910; ... State v. Loftus, 128 Iowa, 529, 104 N.W. 906; ... Bayliss v. People, 46 Mich ... ...
-
State v. Nyland
...crime which imperils the life of the unoffending spouse or threatens bodily harm to him. Appellant cites the cases of State v. La Bounty, 1911, 64 Wash. 415, 116 P. 1073, wherein we held that adultery is not a crime against the state but against the unoffending spouse, who is at liberty to ......
-
State v. Beck
...v. State, 12 Okl. Cr. R. 313, 155 P. 701; See 2 C. J. 19, note 7. Defendant relies upon the case of the State v. LaBounty, a Washington case reported in 64 Wash. 415, 116 P. 1073, in which the court held that it was necessary to allege in the information that the prosecution was commenced u......
-
State v. Beck
...be overruled. For these reasons I concur." Judges Holcomb and Mitchell joined in a dissenting opinion in which they say the decision in State v. La Bounty was not good and should be overruled. So that three of the five judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington agree that it is ......