Blake v. State
| Citation | 210 Md. 459,124 A.2d 273 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 208,208 |
| Parties | Nelson M. BLAKE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Robert C. Heeney, Silver Spring (Robert S. Bourbon, Silver Spring, on the brief), for appellant.
Stedman Prescott, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Alger Y. Barbee, State's Atty., Montgomery County, Rockville, and Leonard T. Kardy, Deputy State's Atty., Montgomery County, Silver, Spring, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, on an indictment charging that he 'did commit a certain unnatural and perverted sexual practice on an adult male, to wit, Kenneth King * * *.' Code 1951, Art. 27, § 627, prohibits any person from engaging in certain acts of oral perversion or from 'committing any other unnatural or perverted sexual practice with any other person or animal, * * *.' There was a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional, but it was stipulated before the hearing that the appellant did not complain that the indictment was not 'sufficiently in detail to describe the offense, or that the defendant could not plead autrefois acquit in case of any subsequent attempt at prospective prosecution.'
The appellant contends that the statute is vague and uncertain and fails to fix an ascertainable standard of guilt. We find no merit in the contention. Penal statutes should be expressed in language as specific as the subject matter will permit, but it is obviously impossible to define some types of crime by a detailed description of all possible cases that may arise. State v. Magaha, 182 Md. 122, 32 A.2d 477. The words of a statute must be accorded the meaning naturally given them in ordinary usage. Glickfield v. State, 203 Md. 400, 403, 101 A.2d 229; Jones v. State, 207 Md. 481, 488, 115 A.2d 273. It is true that section 627 has not heretofore been attacked on this particular ground, although there have been convictions under it. See Berger v. State, 179 Md. 410, 20 A.2d 146, and Haley v. State, 200 Md. 72, 88 A.2d 312. But it would appear that similar statutes in other states have been universally sustained. See Jaquith v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 439, 120 N.E.2d 189; State v. Anthony, 179 Or. 282, 169 P.2d 587; State v. Brazell, 126 Or. 579, 269 P. 884; People v. Coleman, 53 Cal.App.2d 18, 127 P.2d 309; State v. Farmer, 61 Ariz. 266, 148 P.2d 1002.
The appellant contends that because the statute begins with a prohibition against 'oral' perversion, the words 'any other unnatural or perverted sexual practice' must be restricted accordingly, under the rule of ejusdem generis. There was no evidence of oral perversion, but there was undisputed testimony of other sexual activities. The rule of ejusdem generis, however, is merely a rule of construction, and cannot be invoked to restrict the meaning of words within narrower limits than the statute intends, so as to subvert its obvious purpose. Smith v. Higinbothom, 187 Md. 115, 130, 48 A.2d 754. See also Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522. 'Where the particular words exhaust the class, the general words must be construed as embracing something outside of that class.' American Ice Co. v. Fitzhugh, 128 Md. 382, 388, 97 A. 999, 1001. We find in the language employed a clear legislative intention to cover the whole field of unnatural and perverted sexual practices. We think it was unnecessary to describe in detail practices which are matters of common knowledge. Moreover, the section provides that 'in any indictment for the commission of any of the acts, hereby declared to be offenses, it shall not be necessary to set forth the particular unnatural or perverted sexual practice with the commission of which the defendant may be charged nor to set forth the particular manner in which said unnatural or perverted sexual practice was committed, * * *.' We quote this as an indication that the Legislature had in mind practices other than those in the oral category. We have noted that the stipulation waived any objection on the ground that the indictment was not in sufficient detail to advise the accused of the offense charged. Cf. Martin v. State, 203 Md. 66, 77, 98 A.2d 8, and Schanker v. State, 208, Md. 15, 18, 116 A.2d 363. An indictment in substantially the same form, and under a similar statute, was sustained in Tonker v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 178 F.2d 712. See also Weldon v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 183 F.2d 832.
The appellant further contends that there was a variance between the indictment and the proof. The prosecuting witness, a feeble-minded boy,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schochet v. State
...A.2d 204 (1958); Taylor v. State, 214 Md. 156, 133 A.2d 414 (1957); Gregoire v. State, 211 Md. 514, 128 A.2d 243 (1957); Blake v. State, 210 Md. 459, 124 A.2d 273 (1956); Davis v. State, 3 H. & J. 154 (1810) (involving an earlier sodomy statute, Ch. 57 of the Acts of 1793). See also Fletche......
-
State, Use of Odham v. Sherman
...Mtge. Cos., 175 Md. 357 [2 A.2d 399, 119 A.L.R. 585]; Schmeizl v. Schmeizl, 186 Md. 371 ; Glickfield v. State, 203 Md. 400 ; Blake v. State, 210 Md. 459 ; U. S. v. Swift & Co., ([D.C.] Md.), 152 F.Supp. 738; Bracey v. Luray, (4th Cir.), 138 F.2d 8. It cannot be denied that when we speak of ......
-
Giant of Maryland, Inc. v. State's Attorney for Prince George's County
...3 A.2d 476, 477-78 (1939). See also Larkins v. State, 163 Md. 372, 376-77, 163 A. 195, 197 (1932). Compare, Blake v. State, 210 Md. 459, 462-63, 124 A.2d 273, 274 (1956). As we interpret it, the second sentence is a corollary to the penalty provision set forth in subsection (j) of the statu......
-
State v. Lancaster
...inapplicable, and the phrase "unnatural or perverted sexual practice" encompasses more than acts of an oral nature. Blake v. State, 210 Md. 459, 462, 124 A.2d 273, 274 (1956). The statutory language clearly requires rejection of the State's argument that the § 554 offense contains a single ......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...S.E.2d 735 (Ga. 1991). (20) See Commonwealth v. Gallant, 369 N.E.2d 707 (Mass. 1977). (21) See Rodgers, 401 S.E.2d at 735; Blake v. State, 124 A.2d 273 (Md. 1956); State v. Crawford, 478 S.W.2d 314 (Mo. (22) See State v. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. 1993). For an older case, see, e.g., Cole ......