## Facts

- Robert S. Vogel married Peggy Lambert in Louisiana in 1944; after military service, they remarried in a religious ceremony in 1947 and had two children.
- The marriage was unhappy and included multiple separations; Vogel returned to active duty in 1950 and did not resume cohabitation after his 1951 release.
- Peggy moved with the children to St. Louis in late 1951 and was seriously injured in an automobile accident in 1952; Vogel temporarily assisted and stayed with the family in New Orleans until August 1952.
- On March 6, 1953, Vogel married Stelma Roberts in San Diego County, California; Stelma later obtained a final divorce from Vogel in 1954.
- At Vogel’s bigamy trial, Peggy testified she had never divorced Vogel, though she had used her maiden name and lived with another man while using his surname.
- Vogel admitted he had not divorced Peggy and could not produce direct evidence that she divorced him.
- The trial court excluded Vogel’s proffered testimony that Peggy told him she intended to obtain a divorce in an unknown jurisdiction.
- The trial court also excluded third-party testimony that Peggy lived with a man named Earl Heck, was known as “Mrs. Earl Heck,” and was identified as “Mrs. Heck” after her accident, ruling such evidence immaterial based on an interpretation that good-faith belief was no defense to bigamy.
- The jury convicted Vogel of bigamy; the trial court denied a new trial; Vogel appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether bigamy under California Penal Code § 281 requires proof of criminal intent regarding the continued existence of the first marriage.
2. Whether an honest good-faith belief that the defendant was free to marry (even if mistaken) is a defense to bigamy.
3. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding evidence offered to show the defendant’s good-faith belief that his prior marriage had been terminated.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial.
- The court held bigamy in California is not a strict-liability offense; it requires a culpable mental state.
- An honest good-faith belief that the defendant is free to marry negates the mens rea for bigamy, even if the belief is unreasonable.
- The excluded evidence regarding Peggy’s statements and conduct was material to Vogel’s state of mind and should have been admitted for the jury’s consideration.
- The exclusion was prejudicial because it removed from the jury evidence bearing directly on an element of the offense.

## Legal Principles

- Absent clear legislative direction, criminal statutes are construed to require a guilty mind rather than impose strict liability.
- Under California Penal Code § 281, bigamy requires proof that the defendant married while knowing (or not honestly doubting) that a prior valid marriage still existed.
- A genuine good-faith mistake about dissolution or invalidity of the prior marriage is a defense because it negates criminal intent.
- Evidence tending to prove the defendant’s good-faith belief about marital status is admissible because it bears on mens rea.

## Conclusion

Because bigamy requires criminal intent and Vogel was entitled to present evidence that he honestly believed he was free to marry, the exclusion of that evidence required reversal and a remand for proceedings in which the jury could assess his good-faith belief.


People v. Vogel, 46 Cal. 2d 798 (Cal. 1956)