Burns v. State

1919 OK CR 235, 182 P. 738, 17 Okla. Crim. 26, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided August 5, 1919·No. No. A-2936.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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:

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

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

1919 OK CR 235 (Burns v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)