Golden v. State, F-83-584
| Decision Date | 20 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. F-83-584,F-83-584 |
| Citation | 695 P.2d 6 |
| Parties | Louis Daniel GOLDEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Louis Daniel Golden was charged by Information in Greer County District Court, Case No. CRF-82-17, with the Crime Against Nature (Sodomy), pursuant to 21 O.S.1981, § 886. Appellant waived his right to a trial by jury, and was convicted by the Honorable William Fancher, Associate District Judge, who imposed a five (5) year sentence. We affirm.
S.S., a thirteen-year-old boy, had arranged with appellant to mow a lawn outside Granite, Oklahoma. After appellant and S.S. arrived at the location, they went inside the house. In an upstairs bedroom, appellant forced S.S. onto a mattress by tickling him. Appellant unsnapped the boy's pants and pulled them down. He placed S.S.'s penis inside his mouth. S.S. immediately jumped out of bed, exclaimed he "wasn't a fag", and ran from the home. Appellant eventually found S.S. and drove him back to Granite. The police were later informed of the incident.
Appellant admitted he and S.S. went into the house, but denied unzipping S.S.'s pants, tickling him, or putting S.S.'s penis in his mouth.
Appellant first alleges that 21 O.S.1981, § 886 is unconstitutionally vague, and appellant's conviction therefore cannot stand. We disagree. This writer has for many years been of the opinion that section 886 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. See Canfield v. State, 506 P.2d 987, 989-990 (Okl.Cr.1973) (Brett, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). However, my colleagues on this Court and the justices of the United States Supreme Court, in construing similar statutes, have disagreed. See Moore v. State, 501 P.2d 529 (Okl.Cr.1972), and Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 190, 38 L.Ed.2d 179 (1973). Therefore, as a matter of stare decisis, I am compelled to uphold the statute and deny this assignment of error. See Clayton v. State, 695 P.2d 3, 55 O.B.J. 1786 (Okl.Cr.1984).
Appellant's second assignment of error alleges the evidence was insufficient to support appellant's conviction. In Ex Parte DeFord, 14 Okl.Cr. 133, 168 P. 58 (1917), this Court held section 886 includes copulation per os, as alleged here. Penetration, however slight, is required to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Adoption of 2016 Revisions to Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions-Criminal
...a political subdivision of the State. Section 886 has been held not to be unconstitutionally vague. Golden v. State, 1985 OK CR 9, ¶ 4, 695 P.2d 6, 7. However, in Post v. State, 1986 OK CR 30, ¶¶ 11-12, 715 P.2d 1105, 1109-10, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals declared it unconstitutio......
-
In re Adoption of the 2019 Revisions
...of a political subdivision of the State.Section 886 has been held not to be unconstitutionally vague. Golden v. State, 1985 OK CR 9, ¶ 4, 695 P.2d 6, 7. However, in Post v. State, 1986 OK CR 30, ¶¶ 11-12, 715 P.2d 1105, 1109-10, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals declared it unconstitut......
-
McBrain v. State
...that this statute is constitutional. Hicks v. State, 713 P.2d 18 (Okl.Cr.1986); Glass v. State, 701 P.2d 765 (Okl.Cr.1985); Golden v. State, 695 P.2d 6 (Okl.Cr.1985); Clayton v. State, 695 P.2d 3 (Okl.Cr.1984). See also Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 190, 38 L.Ed.2d 179 The appe......
-
Plotner v. State
...the sodomy statutes. See Casey v. State, 732 P.2d 885, 887 (Okl.Cr.1987); Hicks v. State, 713 P.2d 18, 19 (Okl.Cr.1986); Golden v. State, 695 P.2d 6, 7 (Okl.Cr.1985). This assignment is without merit. IV. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...Glass v. State, 701 P.2d 765 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (adult male convicted of rape, sodomy, robbery against two females). Golden v. State, 695 P.2d 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (adult male arranged for 13 year old boy to mow a lawn, when he arrived he was coercively Harris v. State, 713 P.2d 6......