State v. Sharon H.

Delaware Superior Court · Family Law

Family LawAdoptionProhibited MarriageStatutory InterpretationCriminal Procedureconsanguinityhalf-blood relativesadoption

Facts

Sharon and Dennis H. were half-sister and half-brother by blood, born of the same mother but different fathers. Sharon was adopted as an infant by another family, while Dennis was raised in State programs. After Sharon later located Dennis and helped him obtain parole, they married on July 11, 1979. They were then charged with entering into a prohibited marriage and with perjury for swearing falsely that they were not related by blood.

Issue

Whether Delaware's prohibition on marriage between brother and sister applies to half-blood siblings when one was adopted by another family, and whether Delaware's adoption confidentiality statutes bar the State from prosecuting by inquiring into the facts of the adoption. The court also considered whether the State's appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Rule

A marriage prohibition statute barring marriage between brother and sister applies to half-blood siblings where the legislative purpose is to prohibit marriages between blood relatives. Under 13 Del.C. § 919, adoption ends the child's legal rights, privileges, duties, and obligations with respect to natural parents, but does not erase blood ties for purposes of 13 Del.C. § 101(a)(1). Penal statutes are strictly construed only where ambiguity exists, and strict construction does not justify an unreasonable reading contrary to legislative purpose. Confidentiality provisions governing adoption records bar access to those records absent proper authorization, but do not prohibit proof of adoption-related facts through evidence outside the records.

🔒

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 Wilmington, Lena Ortiz and Caleb Ortiz discover as adults that they share the same father but have different mothers. They marry after a brief engagement and are later charged under a statute making it a crime to enter a marriage that is void between a person and his or her brother or sister.

Lena argues the statute does not apply because it says only "brother" and "sister" and does not expressly mention half-siblings. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority treated the marriage prohibition as a consanguinity statute aimed at barring marriage between blood relatives. It held that "brother" and "sister" reasonably include relatives of the half-blood, and strict construction does not require an unreasonable narrowing that defeats legislative purpose. (Derived from State v. Sharon H. (n.d.).)