Comer v. State
| Decision Date | 14 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8995.) |
| Citation | 94 S.E. 314,21 Ga.App. 306 |
| Parties | COMER . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Sodomy.]
Error from Superior Court, Muscogee County; G. H. Howard, Judge.
Mary J. Comer was convicted of sodomy, and she brings error. Affirmed.
Ed. Wohlwender, of Columbus, for plaintiff in error.
C. F. McLaughlin, Sol Gen., of Columbus, for the State.
BLOODWORTH, J. (dissenting). Especially on account of the loathsomeness of the charge in this indictment (the insertion of the mouth and tongue of the male into the vaginal opening of the female) do I regret that I cannot agree with my Brethren in the conclusion reached by them as shown by the second and third headnotes above. As defined in our Code, "sodomy" is the carnal knowledge and connection against the order of nature by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner with woman. Construing this statute strictly, as all criminal laws must be construed, I think it means that the carnal knowledge must be by man with man, or in the same unnatural manner by man with woman. When the connection is thus had, both participants are guilty. Primarily carnal knowledge is synonymous with sexual intercourse, and is "the act of a man having sexual bodily connection with a woman" (Noble v. State, 22 Ohio St. 541, 545; Commonwealth v. Squires, 97 Mass. 61; definition of "carnal knowledge" in Black's Law-Dictionary, p. 174; 6 Cyc. 351; 9 Corpus Juris, 1293), and "is the insertion of the male organ to-some extent, however slightly, into the female organ of the female" (Maxey v. State, 66 Ark. 523, 52 S. W. 2, 3).
1 Russell on Crimes (7th Eng. Ed.) 976.
It will be noted that in the definition of sodomy in our Code the words "carnal knowledge" are the same as those used In the definition of rape. It would hardly be insisted that rape could be committed by the man using his mouth and tongue in the manner alleged in this indictment.
"A conviction of sodomy cannot be sustained, the evidence not showing penetration." Green v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 79 S. W. 304.
1 Wharton's Criminal Law (11th Ed.) 905, 969, §§ 754, 758.
Penetration by what? The same organ of the male used in having ordinary sexual intercourse. Sodomy as originally construed was only per anum. This was the crime of Sodom, the city that gave the abominable and disgusting crime its name.
"Every one commits the felony called sodomy who, * * * being a male, carnally knows any man or any woman (per anum)." See definition of sodomy in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary.
It is now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowers v. Hardwick
... ... The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights ... 1, Pt. 4, § 4251 (1861). This prohibition of heterosexual sodomy was not purely hortatory. See, e.g., Comer v. State, 21 Ga.App. 306, 94 S.E. 314 (1917) (affirming prosecution for consensual heterosexual sodomy). 7. See Thompson v. Aldredge, 187 Ga ... ...
-
Rose v. Locke
... ... , the phrase "crimes against nature" is no more vague than many other terms used to describe criminal offenses at common law and now codified in state and federal penal codes. The phrase has been in use among English-speaking people for many centuries, see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *216, and a ... See, e. g., Comer v. State, 21 Ga.App. 306, 94 S.E. 314 (1917); State v. Townsend, 145 Me. 384, 71 A.2d 517 (1950) ... Respondent argued that the ... ...
-
Warren v. State, 42545
... ... One accused of sodomy could not defend by alleging consent, as lack of consent was not an element of the offense, and "[w]here a man and a woman voluntarily have carnal knowledge and connection against the order of nature with each other, they are both guilty of sodomy, ... " Comer v. State, 21 Ga.App. 306, 94 S.E. 314 (1917). Thus an allegation of consent would only go to show the other party's guilt. "One who voluntarily participates in an unnatural act of sexual intercourse with another is also guilty of sodomy. One who does not so participate is not guilty." Perryman ... ...
-
State v. Mays
... ... 159, 162 n. 19 (1967). Anyone who cared to do so could certainly determine what particular acts have been considered crimes against nature, and there can be no contention that the respondent's acts were ones never before considered as such. See, e.g., Comer v. State, 21 Ga.App. 306, 94 S.E. 314 (1917); State v. Townsend, 145 Me. 384, 71 A.2d 517 (1950) ... ' ... In State v. Crawford, 478 S.W.2d 314 (Mo.1972), the Supreme Court of Missouri rejected a claim that its crime against nature statute was so devoid of definition as to be unconstitutional, ... ...