## Facts

- Michael Clements married Kristi Anderson on December 6, 2009, in North Dakota.
- Anderson filed for divorce from Clements on April 15, 2011, but the divorce was not yet final in June 2011.
- On June 14, 2011, Clements and Alicia Bjerke applied for and received a South Dakota marriage license in Brown County.
- On the same day, Clements and Bjerke participated in a marriage ceremony conducted by county officials, and the executed license was filed shortly thereafter.
- On August 4, 2011, the State charged Clements with bigamy under SDCL 22-22A-1.
- Clements moved to dismiss on the ground that the charge failed to state a public offense because South Dakota’s civil marriage statutes treat bigamous marriages as “void from the beginning,” meaning, in his view, he could not be “married” the second time for purposes of the criminal statute.
- The trial court initially granted the motion but later withdrew that ruling.
- On January 30, 2012, the State filed an information again charging Clements with bigamy.
- Clements pleaded not guilty and renewed his motion to dismiss.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss the information, reasoning that bigamy was a “legal impossibility” because a bigamous marriage is void ab initio under civil law.
- The State appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether South Dakota’s civil-law rule that a bigamous marriage is void from the beginning makes it legally impossible to commit bigamy under SDCL 22-22A-1.
2. Whether the bigamy statute is satisfied when a person with a living spouse participates in a second marriage ceremony or purported marriage contract, even if the second marriage is civilly void.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the information and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the civil-law voidness of a bigamous marriage does not bar prosecution for bigamy under SDCL 22-22A-1.
- The court reasoned that reading the civil statute to erase criminal liability would effectively nullify the Legislature’s decision to criminalize bigamy.
- The court treated the second marriage’s civil invalidity as a consequence for marital status and related civil rights, not as a defense to the criminal charge based on the act of entering a purported marriage while still married.

## Legal Principles

- Courts interpret statutes to give effect to the Legislature’s enactments and avoid constructions that make a statute meaningless.
- Statutes addressing the same subject should be read together so that each can operate, when a consistent reading is available.
- A civil statute declaring bigamous marriages void from the beginning does not prevent criminal liability for bigamy based on participating in a second marriage ceremony or purported marriage contract while a prior spouse is living.
- A trial court’s dismissal of an information for failure to state a public offense presents a question of law reviewed without deference on appeal.

## Conclusion

State of South Dakota v. Clements holds that South Dakota may prosecute bigamy when a person, still married to a living spouse, takes part in a second marriage ceremony or purported marriage contract; the fact that civil law treats the second marriage as void from the beginning does not make the crime “legally impossible,” so the dismissal was reversed and the case was remanded.


State of South Dakota v. Clements, 832 N.W.2d 485 (2013)