State v. Myrtie Bell Woods

• Decision Date: 09 May 1935
• Citation: 179 A. 1,107 Vt. 354
• Parties: STATE v. MYRTIE BELL WOODS
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

179 A. 1

107 Vt. 354

STATE v. MYRTIE BELL WOODS

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 9, 1935

February Term, 1935.

Criminal Law---P. L. 8602---Conclusiveness of Verdict of Jury and Ruling of Court as to Invalidity of Foreign Divorce in Lower Court When Unchallenged---Effect of Belief of Respondent, in Prosecution under P. L. 8602, of Validity of Foreign Divorce---Maxim Concerning Effect of Ignorance of Law---Presumption---Presumptive Knowledge of Law as Applicable in Prosecution under P. L. 8602.

1. In prosecution of woman under so-called Blanket Act, P. L. 8602 based on finding unmarried woman in bed with another woman's husband under circumstances affording presumption of an illicit intention, where respondent claimed that such man had procured divorce in Reno, Nevada, from his wife, and that respondent and he were lawfully married, verdict of jury and rulings of trial court as to invalidity of such divorce not having been challenged, held to be conclusive on respondent.

2. In such prosecution, respondent's honest belief in validity of divorce which man she married obtained in Nevada from his wife in Vermont, held no defense, where respondent knew all about facts and circumstances of divorce proceeding, and her mistake, if any, was as to legal effect in Vermont of such divorce.

3. Maxim that ignorance of law excuses no one, and corresponding presumption that every one is conclusively presumed to know law, are applicable in Vermont, both in civil and criminal cases.

4. Presumption that every one is conclusively presumed to know the law, held applicable to prosecution under P. L. 8602 based on finding unmarried woman in bed with another woman's busband "under circumstances affording presumption of an illicit intention," real purpose of statute being to punish and prevent commission of adultery and quoted words meaning that act intended to be done was forbidden, not that respondent acted with guilty mind.

INFORMATION for violation of the so-called Blanket Act, P. L. 8602. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1934, Orleans County, Cleary, J., presiding. Verdict of guilty and judgment thereon. The respondent excepted. The opinion states the case. No error. Exceptions overruled. Let execution be done.

Judgment that there is no error in the record. Exceptions overruled. Let execution be done.

E. J. Smith and David E. Porter for the respondent.

Lee E. Emerson, State's attorney, for the State.

Present: POWERS, C. J., MOULTON, THOMPSON, and SHERBURNE, JJ., and BUTTLES, Supr. J.

OPINION

BUTTLES

The respondent was convicted in Orleans county court of a violation of P. L. Sec. 8602, commonly known as the Blanket Act.

A transcript of the evidence has not been furnished, but from the respondent's amended exceptions it appears "That the respondent, a single woman, with her three children, in company with one Leo Shufelt, of Lowell, Vermont, and of one John Ellis, motored in the summer of 1933 to Reno, Nevada, * * * where the said Leo Shufelt, who was a married man, instituted divorce proceedings against his wife, then living in Vermont; that process in said divorce proceedings was served upon the said wife; that she never accepted service of same, did not go to Nevada, and had no appearance entered in her behalf in said cause."

It further appears that after hearing, a decree was granted which purported to be a decree of divorce to the said Shufelt, and thereupon he and the respondent went through a marriage ceremony in Reno, which was performed by the same judge who granted the decree, and thereupon the respondent entered into marital relations with the said Shufelt, and after a week or so went with him to Connecticut, whence he subsequently went to Lowell, Vermont, where the respondent later joined him and where the offense herein charged is alleged to have been committed.

The respondent does not challenge, by her exceptions, the submission to the jury of the questions of fact upon which the determination below of the invalidity of the attempted Nevada divorce for the purposes of this case was based. Neither does she challenge the manner in which those questions were submitted nor the determination by the Court below that said attempted divorce is, for the purposes of this case, invalid. The verdict of the jury and the rulings of the trial court as to the invalidity of the attempted Nevada divorce are therefore conclusive upon the rights of the respondent in this case.

Thus there is no question of the validity or invalidity of the attempted Nevada divorce in the case, as it comes to this Court, and it is not necessary for us to consider the principles involved in Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 50 L.Ed. 867, 26 S.Ct. 525, 5 Ann. Cas. 1.

The respondent has saved one exception to the charge as given, and four to the failure of the court to comply with requests to charge. The real question involved in all of these exceptions is the same, and we will consider them together, as the respondent has done in her brief.

The respondent contends, by these exceptions that an honest belief in the validity of the Reno divorce and of her subsequent marriage to Shufelt would be a defense to this prosecution. There is much diversity of view as to whether a mistaken belief as to a fact, based upon reasonable grounds may or may not constitute a defense in a criminal...