Commonwealth v. Poindexter

Decision Date07 May 1909
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. POINDEXTER et al.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Caldwell County.

"To be officially reported."

C. H Poindexter and Frank Moore were convicted of sodomy. The verdict was set aside, a demurrer to the indictment sustained, and the Commonwealth appeals. Affirmed.

James Breathitt, Atty. Gen., and Tom B. McGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.

SETTLE C.J.

The appellees, C. H. Poindexter and Frank Moore, both negroes were indicted in the court below for the crime of sodomy. Upon being arraigned for trial they severally entered a plea of guilty, and the trial jury by the verdict returned found them guilty, and fixed their punishment at confinement in the penitentiary two years each. After the return of the verdict appellees entered a motion and grounds for a new trial. The principal ground urged for the new trial was that in entering the plea of guilty on the trial they and their counsel labored under a misapprehension of the law, in that he and they believed the acts charged in the indictment, of which they still admitted their guilt, constituted the crime of sodomy, whereas they did not as they were advised after the trial constitute that crime or any other under the law. The circuit court set aside the verdict, and granted appellees a new trial. Thereupon they, by counsel, interposed a demurrer to the indictment, which the court sustained on the ground that the acts charged therein did not constitute sodomy, and dismissed the indictment. From the judgment entered pursuant to that ruling the commonwealth has appealed.

The acts charged against the appellees are so disgusting that we refrain from copying the indictment in the opinion. They, however, manifest the perpetration between appellees and by each against the other of an offense against nature committed by the insertion of the private part of the one into the mouth of the other and thereby producing an emission. The question for decision is: Did these acts constitute the crime of sodomy? We have in this state a statute which makes sodomy a felony, and prescribes the punishment to be inflicted for its commission, but the statute does not define the crime. As it is nevertheless a crime at common law in this state, we must look to that source to ascertain its constituent elements and meaning. However, the word "sodomy" is derived from the city of Sodom, where the crime against nature had its origin, and was universally prevalent until that city was destroyed by the wrath of God.

In 2 Bishop's New Criminal Law, § 1191, it is thus defined "Sodomy is a carnal copulation by human beings with each other against nature, or with a beast." By many of the common-law writers sodomy is spoken of as "the infamous crime against nature"; the terms...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • State v. Dietz, 9953
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • August 4, 1959
    ...... Among them may be cited State v. Start, 65 Or. 178, 132 P. 512, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 266; State v. Maida, 29 Del. 40, 96 A. 207; Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 133 Ky. 720, 118 S.W. 943; . Page 541 . State v. Altwatter, 29 [135 Mont. 500] Idaho 107, 157 P. 256; Ex parte Benites, 37 Nev. ......
  • Com. v. Wasson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • September 24, 1992
    ...copulation nor any form of deviate sexual activity between women. The definitive Kentucky case on the subject is Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 133 Ky. 720, 118 S.W. 943 (1909), summarizing the common law and statutory background, and holding: "A penetration of the mouth is not sodomy." In Poi......
  • Kallas v. State, 28469.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 4, 1949
    ...nature had its origin, and was universally prevalent until that city was destroyed by the wrath of God.’ Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 1909, 133 Ky. 720, 118 S.W. 943, 944. Gomorrah was destroyed at the same time for the same sin. Genesis Ch. 19; Jude 1:7; Wm. Smith, Bible Dictionary (1900 Ed......
  • Lawrence v State, s. 14-99-00109-C
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 15, 2001
    ...of vague euphemisms. In fact, statutes often made sodomy a criminal offense without ever defining the conduct. See Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 118 S.W. 943, 944 (Ky. 1909). In its broadest common law form, the offense "consists in a carnal knowledge committed against the order of nature by ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT