State v. Matlock
| Decision Date | 09 December 1886 |
| Citation | 70 Iowa 229,30 N.W. 495 |
| Parties | STATE v. MATLOCK. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Harrison county.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of bigamy, and he appeals.
J. M. Smith and Charles McKenzie, for appellant.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. It appears from the evidence that the defendant was married to one Susan Worth, in Union county, in this state, and that there are two children, the issue of this marriage. Afterwards the defendant, under the name of William Jones, married a woman named Emma Houston. A short time after the second marriage this prosecution was commenced against him. The evidence clearly identified the defendant as a party to both marriages, and no claim is made that the first marriage had been annulled when the second marriage took place. The evidence identifying the defendant is so conclusive that we do not deem it important to elaborate this point in the case.
2. The district attorney introduced in evidence certified transcripts from the marriage records of the counties where the marriages were solemnized. The defendant objected to the introduction of record evidence of the marriages, upon the ground that, under section 10, art. 1, of the constitution of this state, it was the right of the defendant to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Certified transcripts of marriage records are “receivable in all courts and places as evidence of the marriage, and the date thereof.” Code, § 2197. The law makes marriages a matter of public record, and the record is made evidence of the fact of the marriage. There is no reason why this provision should not apply to criminal as well as to civil cases. The constitutional provision relied upon has no reference to record evidence. The right reserved by the provision in question is that witnesses shall be produced and give their testimony in open court upon the trial, in presence of the defendant. See State v. Schaunhurst, 34 Iowa, 547.
Affirmed.
REED, J., dissents on the second point ruled in the opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Torello
... ... State of Georgia, 11 Ga. 353, 373; ... State v. McO'Blenis, 24 Mo. 402, 416, 69 Am.Dec ... 435; State v. Moore, 156 Mo. 204, 56 S.W. 883; ... State v. Heffernan, 24 S.D. 1, 123 N.W. 87, 25 ... L.R.A. (N. S.) 868, 140 Am.St.Rep. 764; Summons v. State, ... 5 Ohio.St. 341; State v. Matlock, 70 Iowa, 229, ... 30 N.W. 495; Chamberlayne on Evidence, § § 458-461, ... inclusive, and cases cited in notes; Wigmore on Evidence, ... § § 1395-1397, inclusive, and cases cited in notes ... The ... admission of the record in evidence will not violate section ... 9 of our ... ...