State v. Lindsey.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1921
• Docket Number: No. 2501.,2501.
• Citation: 194 P. 877,26 N.M. 526
• Parties: STATEv.LINDSEY.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

26 N.M. 526

194 P. 877

STATE

v.LINDSEY.

No. 2501.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 8, 1921.

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 1775, Code 1915, which provides for the punishment of any person convicted of bigamy or polygamy, is sufficient to authorize the conviction of one of the crime of bigamy, as the statute provides the punishment for the doing of an act which has in all English–speaking countries a well–understood meaning.

Under the statute, the good faith or honest purpose of the defendant is not a defense, if in fact he or she had a wife or husband living at the time and presumption of death had not arisen by reason of absence for the necessary length of time.

A confession, in a legal sense, is restricted to an acknowledgment of guilt made by a person after an offense has been committed, and does not apply to a mere statement or declaration of an independent fact from which such guilt may be inferred. A statement by a defendant in a bigamy case that he had been married at a certain time and place and to a person named, all being before the marriage for which he was prosecuted, is an admission and not a confession (citing Words and Phrases, Confession).

Objections to the admissibility of evidence, not raised in the trial court, will not be considered on appeal.

Appeal from District Court, McKinley County; Ryan, Judge.

Jacob A. Lindsey was convicted of bigamy, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Where no objection is made at the trial to the admission of evidence nor exception saved thereto, we will not consider the same on appeal.

A. T. Hannett, of Gallup, for appellant.

Harry S. Bowman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROBERTS, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of bigamy, and appeals. The first ground upon which he relies for a reversal is that the indictment failed to charge facts sufficient to constitute a crime, for two reasons: (a) There is no such offense under the laws of the state of New Mexico as bigamy; and (b) the indictment failed to allege knowledge or intent on the part of the appellant.

[1] The statute, it is true, does not define the crime of bigamy. It simply provides (section 1775, Code 1915):

“Every person who shall be convicted of bigamy or polygamy shall be imprisoned not more than seven years nor less than two years.”

It provides the punishment for the doing of an act which has in all English–speaking countries a well–understood meaning. The commonly understood meaning of the term “bigamy” is the having of two or more wives or husbands at the same time. In the case of State v. Hayes, 105 La. 352, 29 South. 937, the court dealt with an identical situation. The statute there simply provided for the punishment of any person convicted of the crime of bigamy, without defining the crime, and the judgment of conviction was attacked on the same grounds as here. The court said:

“True, as contended by the defendant, the crime of bigamy [quoted] is not particularly defined by the statute of 1898. It remains, however, that the word has a meaning not to be misunderstood wherever the English language is spoken. It is so well understood that it requires no definition. It, in itself, denounces an offense. If a definition of the word had been inserted, it would only have incumbered the statute, and would not have assisted the reader in discovering the meaning, which every reader knows very well. In State v. Smith, 30 La. Ann. 864, the crime charged had not been defined at common law. The one word used did not convey a ‘world–wide definition of the term.’ It had not, like murder, a fixed and definite meaning everywhere, or like other acts, having the same meaning wherever it is understood at all. There are offenses denounced eo nomine by statute, and wherever the word clearly conveys the legislative intent, and is universally understood, they have been sustained as legal and valid. While a different view has been taken when, as in the cited case, the word used conveys an uncertain meaning or is so broad and comprehensive as to render the statute uncertain and faulty, nothing of the sort suggests itself here, and we, in consequence, are unwilling to annul and set aside the statute.”

The meaning of the word “bigamy” used in the statute is universally understood, and no language could have been employed which would have made clearer the intention of the Legislature. There is no merit in the objection that there is no such crime under the laws of this state.

[2] Was it necessary to allege in the indictment that the defendant knew at the time of the second marriage that the prior marriage was in full force and effect; or, in other words, was it essential to allege knowledge and intention? The Legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal without regard to the intent or knowledge of the doer. 16 C. J., Criminal Law, § 42. There are many such offenses denounced in the statutes in various states. Under the ordinarily accepted meaning of the word “bigamy,” given above, it will be observed that the knowledge or intention of the party is not an element of the definition of the offense or act. It might be, and doubtless is, in many states where the offense is defined by statute, essential to criminal bigamy or to a punishable offense that the second marriage should be contracted knowingly and intentionally, the party at the time knowing that the first marriage still...