Court Opinion

ID: 9811308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:16:33.765188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:04.268441
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
dissenting. I am inclined to agree with the line of authorities holding that where it has been shown that the wife has been absent from her husband for over seven years, the burden of proving that he knew she was alive at the time of the second marriage rests upon the State. Otherwise, the defendant would be required to prove a negative, which he could do only by going upon the stand and submitting to cross-examination. He would be forced to become a witness in his own case with all its possible consequences. On the other hand, the State could prove the fact affirmatively by any evidence direct or circumstantial that the jury might believe; as, for instance, that the defendant had been seen with his wife within the seven years, or that she had been seen in the neighborhood, or that some one had told him she was alive, or that her whereabouts were generally known in the community. Any one of these facts would tend to prove his guilty knowledge. To require a defendant to prove a divorce is essentially a different matter, and in*749deed is the converse of the former. A divorce is an affirmative fact peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, and which can be easily and conclusively proved by a mere transcript of the record, without requiring the defendant to become a witness or involve himself in any dangerous consequences. Oessante rations cessat et ipsa lex.