State v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 14 July 1919
• Citation: 107 A. 296
• Parties: STATE v. STEPHENS.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

107 A. 296

STATE

v. STEPHENS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

July 14, 1919.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Penobscot County.

David Stephens was convicted of bigamy, and he excepts. Exception sustained.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

A. L. Blanchard, of Bangor, for the State.

Donald F. Snow, of Bangor, for defendant,

WILSON, J. This indictment charges the respondent with having committed the crime of bigamy in the province of New Brunswick. The respondent filed a general demurrer which was overruled by the presiding justice, to which ruling the respondent excepted. The respondent urges in support of his exceptions that the indictment does not set forth any crime committed within the jurisdiction of this state.

It is elementary law that the statutes of a state have no extraterritorial force, nor do its courts have any jurisdiction of offenses committed in other states or foreign countries. State v. Outshall, 110 N. C. 538, 15 S. E. 261, 16 L. R. A. 130; State v. Ray, 151 N. C. 710, 66 S. E. 204, 134 Am. St. Rep. 1005, 19 Ann. Cas. 566; Scoggins v. State, 32 Ark. 205, 214; Johnson v. Com., 86 Ky. 122, 5 S. W. 365, 9 Am. St. Rep. 269; Bish. Stat. Crimes, § 586; State v. Stewart, 194 Mo. 345, 92 S. W. 878, 112 Am. St. Rep. 529, 5 Ann. Cas. 963.

The offense described in the indictment is alleged to have taken place in New Brunswick. No criminal acts are alleged to have taken place in Maine. It does not even allege cohabitation here with his bigamous spouse, which some states, recognizing the lack of jurisdiction over the bigamous marriage entered into in another state, have made an offense by statute. State v. Stewart, supra; Com. v. Bradley, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 553; Beggs v. State, 55 Ala. 108, 110; and cases cited in 7 Corpus Juris, 1163, note 83.

It is urged, however, and the indictment was apparently framed upon this theory, that since section 4, chapter 126, R. S., provides that the indictment for such an offense may be found and tried in the county where the offender resides, or where he or she is apprehended, it matters not where the offense was committed. But this provision cannot be construed to give our courts jurisdiction of offenses committed beyond the boundaries of the state. State v. Cutshall, supra; State v. Ray, supra. It simply enlarges the jurisdiction of this court by giving it jurisdiction of this offense in any county where the offender may reside or be apprehended, as well as in the county where the offense was...