WILLS
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a bigamy conviction because the state failed to prove either the marriage or cohabitation occurred within Florida, as required by statute.
No, the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for bigamy because Florida law requires either the marriage or the cohabitation to occur within the state, and neither was proven.
“Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries another person, or continues to cohabit with such second husband or wife in this state," is guilty of bigamy and punishable as therein prescribed.”
This quote states the Florida statutory definition of bigamy, highlighting the requirement for the act to occur within the state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of bigamy under Florida law. The state presented evidence that the appellant's second marriage occurred in Georgia. Howeve…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ROBERTS, Justice.
The appellant was informed against and convicted of the offense of bigamy, as denounced by Section 799.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and has appealed from the judgment of conviction. The only question here is the sufficiency of the evidence to support such conviction.
Under our statute, Section 799.01, “Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries another person, or continues to cohabit with such second husband or wife in this state,” is guilty of bigamy and punishable as therein prescribed. It is universally held that, under such statutes, either the marriage or the cohabitation must take place in the state wherein the accused is being prosecuted for such offense. 7 Am. Jur., Bigamy, Section 4, page 750; cases collected in annotation in 70 A.L.R. 1036. In the instant case, the State proved that the second marriage was entered into in the State of Georgia, and there was no-evidence whatsoever that the appellant cohabited with his second wife in this state.
Accordingly, the judgment should be and it is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
HOBSON, C. J., and THOMAS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1971)…hompson, 93 Fla. 30, 111 So. 525 (1927); Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464, 156 So. 893 (1934); City of Coral Gables v. State, 128 Fla. 874, 176 So. 40 (1937); Harper v. Strong, 135 Fla. 10, 184 So. 848 (1938); Wade v. Wade, 63 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1953); National Surety Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc., 103 Fla. 738, 138 So. 24 (1931); Russell v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, 128 So. 2d 161 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1961); In Re Estate of Kemp, 177 [*264] So. 2d 757 (Fla.App. 1st, 1965); Coe v. Dien…