Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-5 (2026)
Adultery and fornication; between certain persons forbidden to inter-marry
✓ current as of July 2026
Persons being within the degrees within which marriages are prohibited by law to be incestuous and void, or persons who are prohibited from marrying by reason of blood and between whom marriage is declared to be unlawful and void, who shall cohabit, or live together as husband and wife, or be guilty of a single act of adultery or fornication, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding ten (10) years.
Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 64, art. 12, Title 7(5); 1857, ch. 64, art. 9; 1871, § 2787; 1880, § 2701; 1892, § 955; 1906, § 1031; Hemingway's 1917, § 756; 1930, § 774; 1942, § 2000; Laws, 1956, ch. 241; Laws, 1960, ch. 240.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2023 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Rahim, 805 N.E.2d 13 (Mass. 2004).
Commonwealth v. Rahim, 805 N.E.2d 13 (Mass. 2004). “520b (2003); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-5 (Lexis 2000) and § 93-1-1 (LexisNexis 2003); Mo.”
Williams v. State, 89 So. 3d 676 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “As the State correctly points out, evidence of Sias’s past sexual conduct was not relevant to Williams’s incest charge. Instead, the State only needed to prove that Williams had sex with his *682 daughter and that he knew that she was his daughter at the time.”
London Williams, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, 228 So. 3d 381 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “Williams was convicted of incest, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-5 (Rev. 2014), for engaging in sexual activity with his daughter, who was twenty years old at the time.”
Evans v. State, 579 So. 2d 1246 (Miss. 1991). “Issue #3: Whether Willie Should Have Been Tried Under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-29-5 (1972) rather than § 97-3-65(1)? Because Willie did not raise this issue at the trial level, this Court will not address it.”
Gustavo P. Galvan v. State of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2023). “2012) (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-5 ). “Additionally, the defendant must have full knowledge of the relationship between himself and the other participant.”
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.