State v. Fred Ackerly
| Decision Date | 06 July 1906 |
| Citation | 64 A. 450,79 Vt. 69 |
| Parties | STATE v. FRED ACKERLY |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
May Term, 1906.
INFORMATION for bigamy. Plea, guilty. Trial by court upon an agreed statement of facts at the March Term, 1906, Washington County, Rowell, J., presiding. Judgment, guilty; and sentence thereon. The respondent excepted.
Judgment that there is no error, and that the respondent take nothing by his exceptions.
John W. Gordon for the respondent.
Hollister S. Jackson, State's Attorney, for the State.
Present TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, POWERS, and MILES, JJ.
The charge is bigamy, and the facts are agreed upon. The statute creating the offence provides that it shall not extend to "a person whose husband or wife has been continually beyond the seas or out of the state for seven years together, the party marrying again not knowing the other to be living within that time." V. S. 5059. The case presented does not bring the respondent within the exception. It is urged, however, that the statute ought not to be construed to include cases where there is an honest belief in the death of the husband or wife, entertained upon reasonable grounds. This claim is not based upon anything contained in the statute, but on the general proposition that an intention to penalize an act that results from an ignorance of fact not due to negligence, ought not to be presumed.
There are many statutes in every jurisdiction that make the doing of certain acts criminal, without words bearing upon the knowledge or intent of the doer; and in prosecutions under statutes of this character it is ordinarily held that ignorance of the fact which makes the act criminal is not a defence. See 12 Cyc. 148, 157, 158. This rule has been applied in a great variety of cases, from breaches of police regulations to bigamy, adultery and statutory rape. See not to Farrell v. State, 30 Am. Rep 617. It is held, however, in some jurisdictions, that an honest belief, based upon reasonable grounds, is a defence to the charge of bigamy, although the second marriage was within the statutory period. 4 Ency. Law 2 ed. 40. But the weight of authority in this country is the other way. The question has not been passed upon in this State, but the action of the Court has at least been foreshadowed in cases recently decided. State v. Hopkins, 56 Vt. 250 (260); State v. Wyman, 59 Vt. 527; State v. Dana, 59 Vt. 614; State v. Tomasi, 67 Vt. 312; State v Ward, 75 Vt. 438. It was claimed in State v. Tomasi that ignorance of fact, unaccompanied by negligence, exempts from criminal responsibility. But it was said in...
To continue reading
Request your trial