Opinion
No. 22829-1-III
Filed: April 12, 2005 UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of Grant County. Docket No: 03-1-00689-3. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 02/17/2004. Judge signing: Hon. Evan E. Sperline.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Paul J. II Wasson, Attorney at Law, 2521 W Longfellow Ave, Spokane, WA 99205-1548.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Teresa Jeanne Chen, Grant County Prosecutors Office, PO Box 37, Ephrata, WA 98823-0037.
Albert H Lin, Grant County Prosecutors Office, Law Justice Center, PO Box 37, Ephrata, WA 98823-0037.
Robert B. Gonzalez, Jr. was found guilty of bigamy. On appeal, Mr. Gonzalez contends the evidence was insufficient for conviction because the State failed to establish a valid first marriage. Pro se, Mr. Gonzalez argues the State violated his right to practice his religion and invaded his privacy by investigating his marital history. We affirm.
FACTS
Mr. Gonzalez was charged with bigamy under RCW 9A.64.010(1). The State alleged Mr. Gonzalez married Vicky Gonzalez while he had a living spouse, Dorinda Gonzalez.
At trial, Dorinda Gonzalez testified she married Mr. Gonzalez on October 15, 1989. The 1989 marriage certificate was an exhibit at trial. Dorinda Gonzalez testified she and Mr. Gonzalez were separated for most of their marriage, but related the two remained married and had sporadic contacts before she obtained a divorce in December 2003, after she learned of Mr. Gonzalez's marriage to Vicky Gonzalez.
The State presented evidence of Mr. Gonzalez's marriage to Vicky Gonzalez in 2003. Pastor Andy Grenier testified he married Vicky Gonzalez and Mr. Gonzalez on March 12, 2003. The 2003 marriage license and marriage certificate for Mr. Gonzalez and Vicky Gonzalez were State exhibits. Vicky Gonzalez confirmed she and Mr. Gonzalez had applied for a marriage license on February 28, 2003, and the two were married.
Mr. Gonzalez testified he had been married four times, but he had never filed for divorce or had received divorce papers. He admitted marrying Dorinda Gonzalez in 1989 and then marrying Vicky Gonzalez in March 2003. He related he married Vicky Gonzalez because he did not want to be intimate with her outside of marriage. Mr. Gonzalez testified he thought his marriage to Dorinda Gonzalez was `over' at the time he married Vicky Gonzalez, because he had not heard from her and could not get in touch with her. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 75. Mr. Gonzalez testified he did not know at the time of his marriage to Vicky Gonzalez whether Dorinda Gonzalez was dead or alive.
The jury found Mr. Gonzalez guilty of bigamy. He appealed.
ANALYSIS Evidence Sufficiency
The issue is whether sufficient evidence exists supporting the jury's finding that Mr. Gonzalez was guilty of bigamy under RCW 9A.64.010(1). The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences most favorably to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980). This court defers to the trier of fact to weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Bryant, 89 Wn. App. 857, 869, 950 P.2d 1004 (1998) (citing State v. Hayes, 81 Wn. App. 425, 430, 914 P.2d 788 (1996)). Under RCW 9A.64.010(1), `[a] person is guilty of bigamy if he intentionally marries or purports to marry another person when either person has a living spouse.' Therefore, `[a] necessary element of the crime of bigamy is the continued existence of a prior valid marriage.' State v. Rivera, 95 Wn. App. 961, 965, 977 P.2d 1247 (1999). The State does not benefit from any presumptions against Mr. Gonzalez. See Rivera, 95 Wn. App. at 965. `It has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.' Id. (citations omitted). Thus, in a bigamy prosecution, `[t]he State must prove by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the first marriage was valid, not merely that the parties believed that it was valid.' Id. (citing Wright v. State, 198 Md. 163, 171, 81 A.2d 602 (1951)).
For purposes of the charges against Mr. Gonzalez, the `first' marriage is that of Mr. Gonzalez and Dorinda Gonzalez in 1989. The `second' marriage is that of Mr. Gonzalez and Vicki Gonzalez in 2003. At trial, Mr. Gonzalez vaguely related he had been married twice before he married Dorinda Gonzalez. The State did not present any evidence related to the validity or termination of these two former alleged marriages.
Thus, Mr. Gonzalez argues insufficient evidence exists of a valid first marriage to Dorinda Gonzalez, citing Rivera, 95 Wn. App. at 966. In Rivera, this court found insufficient evidence of bigamy where the State failed to present any evidence of a valid first marriage in Mexico, other than the subjective belief of the parties that they were married. Id. In light of affirmative evidence that Mexican law required both a religious and civil ceremony, and the fact that the State's sole substantive evidence of a valid marriage in Mexico was excluded at trial, this court found no evidence existed from which the jury could infer there was a valid first marriage. Id.
Here, the State did present evidence of a facially valid marriage certificate for Mr. Gonzalez and Dorinda Gonzalez. In addition, Dorinda Gonzalez testified she married Mr. Gonzalez in 1989, and she remained married to him until December 2003. This was confirmed by Mr. Gonzalez. The State is entitled to reasonable inferences raised by this evidence. Green, 94 Wn.2d at 221. Therefore, the jury was allowed to make the reasonable inference that this `first' marriage was valid for purposes of RCW 9A.64.010(1).
Although Mr. Gonzalez's scant testimony in this regard tended to negate the validity of his marriage to Dorinda Gonzalez, that theory was not argued to the jury. Further, the jury was free to reject his testimony, especially considering the lack of specificity by Mr. Gonzalez about his claimed prior marriages, such as names or dates. We will not disturb credibility determinations when the charge is otherwise supported by the evidence. See State v. Young, 83 Wn.2d 937, 938, 523 P.2d 934 (1974). In sum, sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find Mr. Gonzalez guilty of bigamy.
Additional Grounds
Mr. Gonzalez contends the State violated his right to practice his religious belief that he would commit a sin if he slept with a woman out of wedlock.
The First Amendment of the United States constitution guarantees the right to free exercise of religion. U.S. CONST. amend. I. Similarly, article I, section 11 of the Washington State Constitution partly provides: Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.
However, religious freedoms are not implicated by neutral laws governing activities when the government has the right to regulate merely because such laws incidentally prohibit religiously motivated activity. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881-82, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990). Washington's bigamy statute is a neutral law of general application. Further, the United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected constitutional attacks on the application of anti-bigamy laws. See Employment Div. v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660, 672, 108 S. Ct. 1444, 99 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1988); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 346-47, 10 S. Ct. 299, 33 L. Ed. 637 (1890), overruled in part on other grounds by Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996). Mr. Gonzalez does not argue Washington's Constitution affords greater protection than the United States Constitution.
Mr. Gonzalez next contends the State invaded his privacy by investigating his marital history. Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution provides: `No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.' Our Supreme Court has held that this provision "clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations," and gives greater protections than the Fourth Amendment. State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 348, 979 P.2d 833 (1999) (quoting State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 180, 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). However, Mr. Gonzalez's marital history is a matter of public record. Under these circumstances, the State did not invade Mr. Gonzalez's privacy by investigating his marital history.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
SWEENEY, A.C.J. and KURTZ, J., Concur.