Commonwealth v. Stowell

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Criminal Law

Criminal LawConstitutional LawPrivacyAdulteryadulteryright of privacyfundamental rightsordered liberty

Facts

Police officers observed Judith Stowell signal to the driver of a van, enter it, and travel with him to a secluded wooded area near a factory. Looking through the rear window, the officers saw Stowell and the male driver having sexual intercourse. Both were adults, both said they were married, and they were not married to each other. Both were arrested and charged with adultery under G. L. c. 272, § 14.

Issue

Whether Massachusetts's adultery statute, G. L. c. 272, § 14, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied because the Federal Constitution protects a private consensual decision by adults to commit adultery. The reported questions also asked whether the statute applies to consensual acts between adults in private.

Rule

The constitutional right of privacy protects only those personal rights that are fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. There is no fundamental privacy right barring prosecution of consenting adults who commit adultery in private, and the state may regulate conduct threatening the institution of marriage so long as no fundamental right is infringed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Springfield, Massachusetts, Elena Cruz, who is married, and Owen Pike, who is unmarried, engage in consensual sexual intercourse in Elena's apartment while alone. Both are charged under a state adultery statute that reaches a married person who has intercourse with a non-spouse and an unmarried person who has intercourse with a married person.

Elena moves to dismiss, arguing that the Federal Constitution protects private consensual sexual decisions between adults from criminal punishment. How should the court rule under the majority's reasoning?

Explanation. The majority held that only personal rights that are fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty receive constitutional privacy protection. It specifically concluded that there is no fundamental privacy right barring prosecution of consenting adults who commit adultery in private. So the federal privacy challenge fails even though the conduct was consensual and private. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Stowell (n.d.).)