State v. Holm
2006 UT 31, 137 P.3d 726 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's bigamy statute criminalizing the act of 'purporting to marry' another person while already legally married is constitutional and can be applied to individuals who participate in a religious marriage ceremony, even if that ceremony is not intended to create a legally recognized civil marriage.
Facts:
- In 1986, Rodney Hans Holm legally married Suzie Stubbs.
- Holm, a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), subsequently entered into a religious marriage with Wendy Holm.
- When Holm was thirty-two, he participated in a religious marriage ceremony with sixteen-year-old Ruth Stubbs, his legal wife's sister.
- The ceremony was conducted by FLDS religious leader Warren Jeffs and involved the exchange of vows in which Holm and Stubbs agreed to be 'lawful and wedded' husband and wife.
- Holm and Ruth Stubbs understood that their religious ceremony was not a legal, civil marriage and did not intend for it to be recognized by the state.
- After the ceremony, Ruth Stubbs moved into Holm's house, where his other wives and their children also lived.
- Holm and Ruth Stubbs regularly engaged in sexual intercourse and had two children together before she turned eighteen.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Utah charged Rodney Hans Holm in a state trial court with one count of bigamy and three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.
- At a preliminary hearing, the magistrate dismissed one of the unlawful sexual conduct charges for insufficient evidence.
- Holm filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the remaining charges, arguing the bigamy and unlawful sexual conduct statutes were unconstitutional, which the trial court denied.
- A jury found Holm guilty of one count of bigamy and two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.
- The jury's special verdict form specified that it found Holm guilty of bigamy under both the 'purports to marry' and the 'cohabits' prongs of the statute.
- The trial court imposed a sentence but suspended the prison time and fine, ordering probation, jail time with work release, and community service instead.
- Holm, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Utah Court of Appeals, with the State of Utah as appellee.
- The Utah Court of Appeals, on its own motion, certified the appeal for transfer to the Supreme Court of Utah for a final decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Utah's bigamy statute, which criminalizes 'purporting to marry' another person while already married, violate an individual's constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, due process, or freedom of association when applied to a religious ceremony not intended to create a legally recognized marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Durrant, Justice
No. Utah's bigamy statute does not violate the state or federal constitutions when applied to an individual who, while already married, participates in a religious ceremony to take another wife, regardless of whether legal recognition for the second union is sought. First, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the phrase 'purports to marry' is not confined to legal marriage and is broad enough to cover religious ceremonies that have all the indicia of a traditional wedding. Second, the Utah Constitution's 'irrevocable ordinance' expressly prohibits polygamous marriages, thereby removing such practices from the protection of the state's free exercise clause. Third, under the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v. United States remains controlling precedent, establishing that religiously motivated polygamy is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause. Finally, the due process protections recognized in Lawrence v. Texas are inapplicable because that case was narrowly limited to private, consensual adult sexual conduct and explicitly excluded conduct that involves minors or abuses an institution the law protects, such as marriage.
Concurring - Nehring, Justice
No. I concur in the judgment and write separately to reinforce the majority's historical and statutory analysis. The dissent's view that 'marry' must always mean a legal union is incorrect, as the term's meaning can shift with statutory purpose. A thorough review of the history surrounding the Utah Enabling Act and the state's constitutional convention demonstrates that the federal government and Utah's framers intended to prohibit the practice of polygamy in all its forms, not merely to forbid its legal recognition. The U.S. Supreme Court's precedent in Reynolds remains a firm barrier to any constitutional protection for polygamy, and the State's authority to criminalize it is directly tied to this precedent and specific constitutional grants, which distinguishes it from broader, and potentially impermissible, regulation of other intimate relationships.
Dissenting - Durham, Chief Justice
Yes. The bigamy statute, as interpreted by the majority to criminalize private religious acts with no claim to legal status, violates constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion and privacy. The statutory term 'marry' should be interpreted in its legal context to mean a 'legal union.' Since Holm never purported to enter a second legal marriage, his conduct does not fall under the statute. Furthermore, the Utah Constitution's prohibition of polygamous 'marriages' was only intended to forbid the state from legally recognizing such unions, not to strip private polygamous conduct of all constitutional protection. The state has failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting Holm's private, religiously motivated conduct, which does not threaten the legal institution of marriage. Finally, under Lawrence v. Texas, the state cannot use criminal law to control a private, consensual relationship between adults that does not abuse an institution the law protects.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the state's broad power to prohibit and criminally punish polygamy, even when practiced privately for religious reasons without any attempt to gain legal recognition. It significantly curtails the application of modern due process and privacy precedents like Lawrence v. Texas in the context of marital regulation, establishing that the state's interest in preserving monogamy is a legitimate basis for criminalization. The case solidifies the continuing vitality of the 19th-century ruling in Reynolds v. United States and insulates Utah's anti-polygamy laws from state-level constitutional challenges by interpreting the state's 'irrevocable ordinance' as a specific carve-out from religious freedom protections.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Holm