In a bigamy case, should the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question be granted or denied?

In a bigamy case, should the motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question be granted or denied?

• A. Granted, because civil action will determine the issue.
• B. Denied, because the civil action for nullity did not precede the criminal action; thus no prejudicial question.
• C. Granted, because civil action will determine nothing.
• D. Denied, because all civil actions suspend criminal actions.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is prejudicial questions: a criminal case can be suspended if a civil action between the same parties exists and its outcome would determine an essential element of the crime. In a bigamy case, the civil action typically involved is a petition for the declaration of nullity of the marriage. Suspension is appropriate only if that civil action has been started before or is pending so that its resolution would affect the criminal matter. If the civil action for nullity did not precede the criminal action, there is no prejudicial question to resolve, and the criminal case should proceed. That’s why the motion to suspend should be denied in this scenario—the civil action isn’t in place to determine the issue. If a civil action had preceded or was pending, suspension would be appropriate because the civil judgment could dispose of a controlling issue in the bigamy case. The other options fail because they either assume the civil action exists as a basis for suspension without it having preceded, claim the civil action determines nothing, or state an absolute rule that all civil actions suspend criminal actions, which is not accurate.

The key idea is prejudicial questions: a criminal case can be suspended if a civil action between the same parties exists and its outcome would determine an essential element of the crime. In a bigamy case, the civil action typically involved is a petition for the declaration of nullity of the marriage. Suspension is appropriate only if that civil action has been started before or is pending so that its resolution would affect the criminal matter.

If the civil action for nullity did not precede the criminal action, there is no prejudicial question to resolve, and the criminal case should proceed. That’s why the motion to suspend should be denied in this scenario—the civil action isn’t in place to determine the issue.

If a civil action had preceded or was pending, suspension would be appropriate because the civil judgment could dispose of a controlling issue in the bigamy case. The other options fail because they either assume the civil action exists as a basis for suspension without it having preceded, claim the civil action determines nothing, or state an absolute rule that all civil actions suspend criminal actions, which is not accurate.