137 P.3d 726, 773 (Durham, C.J., dissenting)
Rodney Hans Holm was legally married to Suzie Stubbs in 1986.1
As a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Holm participated in a religious marriage ceremony with Wendy Holm.2
When Holm was thirty-two years old, he participated in another religious marriage ceremony with sixteen-year-old Ruth Stubbs, Suzie Stubbs's sister.3 After the ceremony, Ruth moved into Holm's house in Hildale, Utah, where Suzie, Wendy, and their children also resided.4 By the time Ruth turned eighteen, she had conceived two children with Holm, the second born approximately three months after her eighteenth birthday.5
Holm was arrested in Utah and charged with three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old in violation of Utah Code section 76-5-401.2.6 He was also charged with one count of bigamy in violation of Utah Code section 76-7-101.78 All charges were third-degree felonies.9
The trial court denied Holm's pretrial motion for a continuance based on Lawrence v. Texas.10 It also denied his motion to dismiss on statutory and constitutional grounds.11
At trial, Ruth Stubbs testified that she participated in a religious ceremony with Holm officiated by Warren Jeffs.12 She wore a white dress, exchanged vows, and answered 'I do' to a question about being his lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity.13 She testified that she moved in with Holm, that they regarded each other as husband and wife, and that they regularly engaged in sexual intercourse at the house in Hildale, Utah.14
The trial court denied Holm's request to present expert testimony about FLDS practices and beliefs.15 The jury returned a guilty verdict on each charge.16 It found on a special verdict form that Holm was guilty of bigamy both because he purported to marry Ruth Stubbs and because he cohabited with her.17
The trial court sentenced Holm to up to five years in prison on each conviction, suspended in exchange for probation, jail time, and community service.18 Holm appealed, and the Utah Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.19
Whether the 'purports to marry' provision of Utah Code section 76-7-101 applies to a religious ceremony that does not claim legal recognition as marriage?20
Utah Code section 76-7-101 provides that a person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.21 The term marry encompasses both legally recognized marriages and those recognized by custom, as supported by the plain language of the statute, related provisions in the Utah Code, and legislative history aimed at preventing all indicia of marriage repeated more than once.22
Yes. The undisputed facts establish that Holm stood before an official of the FLDS Church with Ruth Stubbs at his side and responded affirmatively to a vow asking whether he took her to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity.23
At the ceremony, Stubbs wore a white dress she considered a wedding dress.24 The ceremony was officiated by a religious leader, and vows typical of a traditional marriage ceremony were exchanged.25 Following the ceremony, Stubbs moved into Holm's house.26 The two regarded each other as husband and wife, and they regularly engaged in sexual intercourse.27
The 'purports to marry' provision applies to Holm's religious ceremony with Ruth Stubbs.28
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Durham would hold that the 'purports to marry' provision refers only to an individual's claim of entry into a legal union recognized by the state as marriage.29 It does not encompass an individual's entry into a religious union where there has been no attempt to elicit the state's recognition of marital status.30
She concludes it was error for the district court to submit to the jury the question of Holm's guilt under that prong because Holm never claimed to have entered a legally valid marriage. The phrase does not reach private religious conduct that makes no claim to legal benefits or recognition.31
Whether Utah's bigamy statute violates the state constitution's guarantees of religious freedom and individual liberty when applied to religiously motivated polygamous conduct?32
Article III, section 1 of the Utah Constitution declares that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited and the irrevocable ordinance removes polygamy from the realm of protected free exercise of religion.33 Article I, section 4 and related clauses do not shield behavior the constitution is specifically aimed at preventing.34
No. Holm is foreclosed by the language of the state constitution from appealing to provisions protecting freedom of conscience, individual liberty, or free exercise to protect behavior that the constitution is specifically aimed at preventing.35
The framers understood the irrevocable ordinance to mandate the prevention of polygamy and not merely to prohibit government recognition of polygamy.36
Utah's bigamy statute does not violate the state constitution's guarantees of religious freedom and individual liberty when applied to Holm's religiously motivated conduct.37
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Durham concludes that neither article III, section 1 nor article XXIV, section 2 categorically excludes private polygamous conduct from any possibility of protection under article I.38
She would reverse Holm's bigamy conviction on the ground that it violates his religious freedom as guaranteed by the Utah Constitution because imposing criminal penalties on his religiously motivated entry into a religious union is an unconstitutional burden.39 The state constitution's religious freedom provisions require heightened scrutiny of burdens on religiously motivated conduct.40 The bigamy statute fails that scrutiny when applied to private consensual adult relationships that cause no harm to third parties or society.41
Whether the federal constitution's protections for free exercise of religion, due process liberty interests, equal protection, or freedom of association shield religiously motivated polygamous conduct from criminal prosecution?42
Reynolds v. United States remains controlling precedent and permits criminal prosecution of religiously motivated polygamy.43 Lawrence v. Texas does not extend protection to conduct that implicates the public institution of marriage or involves a minor.44 The bigamy statute is facially neutral and does not violate equal protection or the right of association.45
No. Reynolds has never been overruled and has been cited with approval in modern free exercise cases.46
The behavior at issue raises important questions about the state's ability to regulate marital relationships and involves a minor, placing it outside the scope of Lawrence.47 The statute is facially neutral as to religion and there is no evidence of discriminatory intent or enforcement.48
The federal constitution's protections do not shield Holm's religiously motivated polygamous conduct from criminal prosecution.49
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Nehring concurs in the judgment but writes separately to address the dissent's criticisms.50 He concludes that Reynolds blocks any ambitions Lawrence might have to draw polygamy within constitutional protection.51
The precedent of Reynolds standing alone is sufficient to insulate Utah's bigamy statute from attack under the United States Constitution.52 He also notes that the cultural and institutional context of the case required careful attention to the legal foundation but that the oath of office precludes allowing public reaction to influence the outcome.53
Whether the trial court had criminal jurisdiction over the charges of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor?54
Yes. Stubbs testified that she lived together with Holm at their Hildale residence during the charged periods and that it was common for her to have sexual intercourse with him at the house in Hildale, Utah.57
This undisputed testimony, together with the facts that Holm and Stubbs had entered into a religious union, considered themselves married, and that Stubbs conceived two children during the charged periods, establishes jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.58
The trial court had criminal jurisdiction over the charges of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.59
Whether Utah Code section 76-5-401.2 violates equal protection by distinguishing between married and unmarried individuals in prohibiting sexual conduct with sixteen- or seventeen-year-olds?60
The Equal Protection Clause requires that state laws treat similarly situated people alike unless a reasonable basis exists for treating them differently. Where no suspect classification or fundamental right is involved, a difference in treatment need be only rationally related to a valid public purpose.61
No. The distinction between married and unmarried individuals is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in providing minors with the protections of the legal framework surrounding marriage, including rights to support, procedural requirements for dissolution, fair distribution of property, and inheritance rights.6263
The state has a legitimate interest in criminalizing the conduct only where the parties are not married to each other.64
Utah Code section 76-5-401.2 does not violate equal protection.65