Burns v. State

1919 OK CR 235, 182 P. 738, 17 Okla. Crim. 26, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedAugust 5, 1919
DocketNo. A-2936.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1919 OK CR 235 (Burns v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burns v. State, 1919 OK CR 235, 182 P. 738, 17 Okla. Crim. 26, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317 (Okla. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

MATSON, J;

This is an appeal from the district court of Jefferson county, wherein plaintiffs in error, J. E. Burns and Lula Bond, were convicted of living together in open and notorious adultery, and their punishment fixed at fines of $350 and $250, respectively. From such judgments of conviction each has appealed, and among other grounds assigned as reasons for reversal .is that the evi *27 dence wholly fails to support a conviction of living together in open and notorious adultery within the .meaning of the Oklahoma statute defining said crime and the decisions of this court construing the same.

This prosecution was founded upon an indictment returned by the grand jury of Jefferson county which charged the said defendants with living together in open and notorious adultery. The court in instructing the jury limited its consideration to the guilt of the defendants of the crime of living together in open and notorious adultery. The verdicts of the jury found each defendant guilty of the crime charged in the indictment, and upon such verdicts the court pronounced judgments of conviction against each of the defendants of the crime of living together in open and notorious adultery.

While the evidence discloses that the husband of the defendant Bond appeared before the grand jury, and that it was through and by his efforts that this indictment was returned against the parties to the crime, so that it could properly have been held that the prosecution was commenced and carried on against these parties by the husband of one of the defendants, so that a conviction of ordinary adultery as distinguished from open and notorious adultery would have been permissible under the charge and the evidence, yet, because the court did not submit that issue for the consideration of the jury, this court is limited in considering the evidence to the sufficiency of the same to support a conviction of the crime of living together in open and notorious adultery.

Before proceeding to a consideration of the evidence of the state’s witnesses upon which reliance is based to support this conviction, it is appropriate to call attention *28 to certain definitions of the crime of “open and notorious adultery” heretofore given by this court. In Copeland v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 1, 133 Pac. 258, it was held:

“To constitute living together in open and notorious adultery the parties must reside together publicly, in the face of society, as if the conjugal relation existed between them, and their illicit intercourse must be habitual.”

In Kitchens v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 603, 140 Pac. 619, while it is held that it is not necessary that the parties claim to be husband and wife if they live together in the same house in the familiar manner of husband and wife, yet, in order to constitute the offense of living together in open and notorious adultery, it is necessary that their lewd and lascivious cohabitation and conduct be open and notorious. In the latter case a reading of the statement of facts discloses that the parties convicted lived together in the same house by themselves, and that their conduct was lewd and lascivious, and that several witnesses saw the parties in compromising positions and taking indecent liberties with the persons of each other.

In the case of Spencer v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 178, 169 Pac. 270, L. R. A. 1918F, 592, where the evidence was held sufficient to support a conviction of living together in open and notorious adultery, the facts show that the convicted parties, although unmarried, lived together in the same house as husband and wife, and that such relationship continued for a prolonged length of time even after it became generally known in the community that the parties were not married to each other.

In the recent cas,e of Barber et al. v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 558, 179 Pac. 790, wherein it was held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of living to *29 gether in open and notorious adultery, the facts are not dissimilar to those in this case. In that case it was also held:

“To constitute ‘living in open and notorious adultery/ under the statute, there must be something more than occasional illicit intercourse indulged in; the parties must reside together publicly in the face of society, as if conjugal relations existed between them, and their so living must become generally known in the community in which they live.”

In substance the evidence relied upon to support the conviction in this case is about as follows:

G. M. Bon'd testified in part:

“I reside at present in this county out east of Adding-ton with my son. I am a married man, and know the defendant Lula Bond., She is my wife. We were married to each other in Dallas, Tex., in May, 1893, about 23 years ago now. I have never been divorced from Lula Bond, and she and I have remained husband and wife from the date of our marriage to this time. We went to the place where Mrs. Bond lives now the second year after we came to Oklahoma, and for two years we lived over there where Mrs. Bond now lives on the Grove land; that is right on the banks of Bed Biver, and about 3% miles southeast of Terral, Jefferson county, Okla. She and I went away from Oklahoma to Baltimore, Md., and we were there when President Wilson was inaugurated, ■ and ■ then she came back home a month before Í did, and this was just a month before my litle daughter graduated in May at Dallas, Tex., which would make it about the year 1913, and four years ago next month. Wife wrote me a great many letters. In every letter I would get from her she told me not to hurry home, but to stay and have my visit out. After I came home I had a conversation with her relative to her conduct. She told me she had been in the pasture five or six'miles from home with Mr. Burns and had stayed there with him nearly all day. I then told her the character that Burns *30 had, how he stood in regard to morality. Well, she told me she had been out riding with him, and what she said to him was in response to what I had said to her. I remonstrated with her for six months about Burns. The only reason she ever gave for riding around at night with him was that she was trying to reform him. Never did she, but one time, agree that she would quit going with him. I had to go over to Ardmore on some business, and when I came back off the trip she told me she had a dance the night before, and that Burns was there, and that the next day was Sunday, and that she and Burns had gone out to the pasture again. She and I have been separated about two years, and on that separation I gave her very near all the property I had. Burns separated from his wife a little after I separated from mine, about two years ago. I don’t know where he lived after his separation from his wife only from hearsay, but I have seen him at the house of my wife. On our separation my wife kept our home place. I supposed on seeing him there that he was in charge of the place, but her brother was living there at the same time. The first time I talked with her about associating with Burns was just after I returned home, after President Wilson’s inauguration. After I came back here she told me she had been out with B:urns.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Carter
16 C.M.A. 277 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1966)
Hagan v. State
1942 OK CR 2 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1942)
State v. Hoffman
282 N.W. 407 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1938)
Gill v. State
1925 OK CR 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1919 OK CR 235, 182 P. 738, 17 Okla. Crim. 26, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-state-oklacrimapp-1919.