Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 7 — Offenses Against the Family; part 76-7-1 — Marital Violations
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-7-101 (2026)

Bigamy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1/1/2027

An individual is guilty of bigamy if:
the individual purports to marry another individual; and
knows or reasonably should know that one or both of the individuals described in Subsection (1)(a) are legally married to another individual.
An individual who violates Subsection (1) is guilty of an infraction.
An individual is guilty of a third degree felony if the individual induces bigamy:
under fraudulent or false pretenses; or
by threat or coercion.
An individual is guilty of a second degree felony if the individual:
cohabitates with another individual with whom the individual is engaged in bigamy as described in Subsection (1); and
in furtherance of the conduct described in Subsection (4)(a):
commits a felony violation of:
Section 76-5-109, child abuse;
Section 76-5-109.2, aggravated child abuse;
Section 76-5-109.3, child abandonment;
Section 76-5-109.4, child torture;
Section 76-5-111, abuse of a vulnerable adult;
Section 76-5-111.2, aggravated abuse of a vulnerable adult;
Section 76-5-111.3, personal dignity exploitation of a vulnerable adult;
Section 76-5-111.4, financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult;
Chapter 5, Part 2, Criminal Homicide;
Section 76-5-208, child abuse homicide;
Chapter 5, Part 3, Kidnapping, Trafficking, and Smuggling;
Chapter 5, Part 4, Sexual Offenses;;
Section 76-7-201, criminal nonsupport;
Title 77, Chapter 36, Cohabitant Abuse Procedures Act; or
Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 8, Criminal Protective Orders; or
commits a misdemeanor violation of Section 76-5-418, sexual battery.
It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (2) that:
the individual ceased the practice of bigamy as described in Subsection (1) under reasonable fear of coercion or bodily harm;
the individual entered the practice of bigamy, as described in Subsection (1), as a minor and ceased the practice of bigamy at any time after the individual entered the practice of bigamy; or
law enforcement discovers that the individual practices bigamy, as described in Subsection (1), as a result of the individual's efforts to protect the safety and welfare of another individual.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31 (Utah 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31 (Utah 2006). · cites it 128× “The jury weighing the case against Holm indicated on a special verdict form its conclusion that Holm had both "purported to marry another person" and "cohabited with another person" knowing that he already had a wife.”
State v. Green, 2004 UT 76 (Utah 2004). · cites it 26× “He also argues that Utah's bigamy statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 (1999), is unconstitutionally vague and that the district court erred in applying Utah's unsolemnized marriage statute, Utah Code Ann.”
Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “The district court held that plaintiffs possessed standing to challenge the constitutionality of Utah’s civil and criminal prohibitions against the practice of polygamy, as reflected in Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 , § 3 of the Utah Enabling Act, and § 1 of Article III of the Utah…”
Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 (1). The court held this portion of the Statute violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, lacked a rational basis under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause, and was void for vagueness.”
Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Utah 2013). · cites it 22× “Understanding the Enabling Act and the Irrevocable Ordinance Conclusion INTRODUCTION Before the court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment relating to Plaintiffs’ facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to Utah’s bigamy statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101…”
H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981). · cites it 2× “[43] This interest, although not discussed by the state courts below, was the subject of appellees' most vigorous argument before this Court. The challenged provision does fall within the "Offenses Against the Family" chapter of the Utah Criminal Code, ante, at 400 (opinion of…”
Estes v. State, 546 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). “010 (2017) ; Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 (2017) ; Colo. Rev.”
State v. Geer, 765 P.2d 1 (Utah Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “OPINION GREENWOOD, Judge: David Bruce Geer appeals from his conviction of bigamy, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 (1978), claiming that he was selectively prosecuted and that an inventory search of his luggage violated his fourth amendment rights.”
In Re Inquiry of a Judge Steed, 2006 UT 10 (Utah 2006). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to that authority, it has enacted Utah Code section 76-7-101, which provides in relevant part: (1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband [sic] or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife [sic], the person purports to marry another…”
Brown v. Herbert, 850 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Utah 2012). · cites it 4× “INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have filed this case to challenge Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 (the “Anti-Bigamy Statute” or the “Statute”) as unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.”
Matter of Adoption of WAT, 808 P.2d 1083 (Utah 1991). · cites it 4× “See generally Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-7-101 to -325. Innumerable other acts are of course defined as crimes by other portions of the criminal code.”
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne, 698 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir. 2012). “§ 2000cc; (4) a claim that Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101 , which prohibits plural marriage, is unconstitutional as applied under the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution; (5) a claim that Utah Code Ann.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 76-7-101(1) — 4 cases
State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31 (Utah 2006). “The jury weighing the case against Holm indicated on a special verdict form its conclusion that Holm had both "purported to marry another person" and "cohabited with another person" knowing that he already had a wife.”
Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Utah 2013). “Understanding the Enabling Act and the Irrevocable Ordinance Conclusion INTRODUCTION Before the court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment relating to Plaintiffs’ facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to Utah’s bigamy statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101…”
In re Adoption of C.C., 2021 UT 20 (Utah 2021).
Brown v. Herbert, 43 F. Supp. 3d 1229 (D. Utah 2014).
— Utah Code § 76-7-101(4)(a) — 1 case
Kinsey v. Kinsey, 2024 UT App 120 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
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.