State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 10 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. S-20-898.,S-20-898. |
| Citation | 310 Neb. 527,967 N.W.2d 242 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Charlie R. JOHNSON, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Matthew K. Kosmicki, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Matthew Lewis for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
In this appeal from a district court judgment affirming a county court's conviction and sentence for bigamy, Charlie R. Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that he was a "married person."1 He asserts that his prior marriage was legally invalid. For that marriage, a Nebraska marriage license was obtained, but the solemnization occurred in Texas. Because we conclude that a voidable marriage will support a bigamy prosecution, we affirm the district court's judgment.
The State charged Johnson with bigamy, contending that when he married Natalie Forney he was already married to Shelley Petersen. Defense counsel argued that Johnson's marriage to Petersen was not a valid marriage because it did not comply with statutes in Nebraska or Texas. The county court held a bench trial, at which the parties stipulated to the exhibits, including an exhibit setting forth what the witnesses would testify to, if called. Next, we summarize that evidence.
On June 29, 2015, Johnson and Petersen completed a marriage worksheet at the Lancaster County clerk's office in Nebraska and paid the requisite fee. Tory Carkoski, a front desk clerk at the Lancaster County clerk's office, watched Johnson and Petersen sign a Nebraska marriage license and notarized their signatures.
On July 4, 2015, Johnson's sister, an ordained minister, performed a wedding ceremony for Johnson and Petersen in Texas. Johnson's sister signed a "Keepsake Marriage Certificate," but she did not sign or return the Nebraska marriage license. Johnson's sister claimed that she later threw away the marriage license at Johnson's request. Johnson and Petersen returned to Nebraska and resided together. They had an "on again - off again relationship."
Carkoski recalled having repeated and frequent contact with the couple within a few weeks of producing the June 29, 2015, marriage license for them. During that time, Petersen called at least 10 times to inquire whether the marriage license had been returned. Petersen informed Carkoski that although she was able to change her surname with the Social Security Administration using the keepsake marriage certificate, she wanted a certified copy of the license in order to "change her information" with the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles. During this timeframe, Johnson told Carkoski that he did not want to be married and inquired how to "prevent the marriage from going through." Carkoski responded that "if they had already filled out the documentation and had the ceremony, they were married."
In late 2016 or early 2017, Carkoski notified the records administrator of the Lancaster County clerk's office that the marriage license between Johnson and Petersen had not been filed. When the records administrator determined that no marriage license was filed for the 2015 marriage, she called Johnson's sister and informed her that a replacement marriage license would be sent which needed to be signed and returned. Johnson and Petersen returned to the Lancaster County clerk's office, signed a copy of the replacement marriage license, and had Carkoski notarize their signatures. Subsequently, the marriage license was returned and filed with the Lancaster County clerk's office in January 2017. The license contained signatures of Johnson's sister and two witnesses. It stated that Johnson and Petersen were married on July 4, 2015, in Lancaster County, Nebraska.
At some point, possibly as late as May 2018, Johnson moved out of the residence he shared with Petersen. Screenshots of text messages between them, some of which were sent in September, showed that Johnson referred to himself as Petersen's husband and to her as his wife.
On November 5, 2018, Carkoski received a marriage worksheet for Johnson and Forney. On November 16, a signed marriage license was filed with the Lancaster County clerk's office showing that Johnson married Forney in Lancaster County on November 15.
In 2019, Petersen attempted to file her income taxes as married filing jointly with Johnson. The Internal Revenue Service notified her that she could not do so because Johnson had filed income taxes as married filing jointly with Forney. Petersen notified the police department, and an investigation uncovered two marriage certificates on file at the Lancaster County clerk's office but no intervening divorce. When a police officer spoke with Johnson, he said that he and Petersen were going to get married but never did.
At the trial's conclusion, the county court took the matter under advisement to allow the parties to file briefs, which are not in our record. The court later convicted Johnson and subsequently imposed a sentence of 30 days in jail.
Johnson appealed to the district court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-104 (Reissue 2016), the district court stated that there were only two requirements for a valid marriage under Nebraska law: a marriage license and solemnization of the marriage by a person authorized by law to solemnize marriages. The court stated that "[t]he evidence unequivocally validates [Johnson's] marriage to [Petersen]" and affirmed Johnson's conviction.
Johnson then appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. We later granted the State's petition to bypass review by the Court of Appeals.2
Johnson assigns that the district court erred in affirming the county court's finding that the State proved him guilty of bigamy beyond a reasonable doubt.
In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and its review is limited to an examination of the record for error or abuse of discretion.3 Both the district court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on the record.4 When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court's inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.5
Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.6
We begin by quoting the statute defining the crime of bigamy and recalling principles of statutory construction regarding penal statutes. Bigamy is defined in § 28-701(1), which provides:
While a penal statute is to be construed strictly in favor of the defendant, it is to be given a sensible construction in the context of the object sought to be accomplished, the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose sought to be served.7 Bigamy "destroys the happiness of families and social order; it places the stigma of illegitimacy upon innocent children; it complicates and prevents the regular descent of property, and deprives the unoffending of their rightful inheritance."8 We have recognized that the marital relationship "is a status, and that the state is interested in and is, in effect, a party to it."9 Long ago, we explained, "The creation of the status entails certain duties and obligations upon the parties thereto ...."10 Those, we said, included duties and obligations of support.11 An observation by a different court that "[t]he benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching nearly every aspect of life and death"12 was not mere hyperbole. Thus, we have reiterated that permitting bigamy would "disturb the peace of families and offend against the decency and good order of society."13
Importantly, § 28-701 does not speak to the validity of the marriage. The Legislature used no qualifier for the term "married person." Johnson's entire argument, as he conceded at oral argument, depends upon reading the first phrase of § 28-701(1) as "any validly married person." But in strictly construing penal statutes, an appellate court does not supply missing words or sentences to make clear that which is indefinite, or to supply that which is not there.14
Rather than conferring the term "marriage" only on a valid marriage,15 the Legislature also used that term for marriages that it described as void16 or voidable.17 We discuss the legal status of the various types of marriages next.
Marriage as a social institution is favored by public policy, and the law raises a strong presumption in favor of its legality.18 With respect to § 42-104, which sets forth what is needed for a marriage to be recognized as valid in Nebraska, we stated:
The [statute] has particularly to do with the manner and method of the valid creation of the marriage relation, but, in the absence of express statutory invalidation, this court has held that the fact that the license required was wrongfully or fraudulently procured may subject the parties to the pains and penalties of the law for violation thereof, but it does not alone affect the validity of the marriage itself.19
Further, "[a]ll marriages contracted without this state, which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...310 Neb. 527 State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Charlie R. Johnson, appellant No. S-20-898Supreme Court of NebraskaDecember 10, 1. Criminal Law: Courts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an intermediate court of appea......
-
State v. Anders
...(last visited July 7, 2022).22 Brief for appellant at 18.23 Id.24 See id.25 State v. Johnson , 310 Neb. 527, 967 N.W.2d 242 (2021).26 See State v. McCurdy , 301 Neb. 343, 918 N.W.2d 292 (2018).27 State v. Mrza, supra note 3.28 Id.29 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, ......