Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 15 (2026)

Polygamy

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 15. Whoever, having a former husband or wife living, marries another person or continues to cohabit with a second husband or wife in the commonwealth shall be guilty of polygamy, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars; but this section shall not apply to a person whose husband or wife has continually remained beyond sea, or has voluntarily withdrawn from the other and remained absent, for seven consecutive years, the party marrying again not knowing the other to be living within that time, nor to a person who has been legally divorced from the bonds of matrimony.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1924–2018 · leading case: Estes v. State, 546 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Estes v. State, 546 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “515 (1971); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 15 (1969); Ga.”

Commonwealth v. Ross, 248 Mass. 15 (Mass. 1924). · cites it 2× “The indictment charges the crime set forth in G. L. c. 272, § 15, that the defendant “ having a lawful wife living, to wit: Bessie Robinson Rosbrough, did at Boston, unlawfully marry and have for his wife one Gertrude Traynor, after which the said John Robert Ross .”

Commonwealth v. Morgan, 339 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. 1975). “, G. L. c. 272, § 15 (polygamy); G. L. c. 272, § 22 (concealing the death of an illegitimate child); G.”

Commonwealth v. Coleman, 24 Mass. L. Rptr. 474 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2008). · cites it 4× “The defendant’s argument is that the Legislature has seen fit to create only limited exceptions to the requirements of G.L.c. 272, §15 including situations when the Commonwealth’s witnesses “have been enticed or kept away, or are detained and prevented from attending the court…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.