Green v. State, 47043
| Decision Date | 11 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 47043,47043 |
| Parties | Marion GREEN v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Prewitt & Braddock, Vicksburg, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by J. B. Garretty, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Appellant Marion Green was indicted by the Grand Jury of Warren County for trespass as a 'Peeping Tom' in violation of Section 2412.5 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp.1958), found guilty and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the State Penitentiary.
Two questions are presented by this appeal. First, does Section 2412.5 violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? Second, is the maximum five years sentence, which appellant received, cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?
Appellant first contends that the statute is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause in that the application of the statute to male persons only is arbitrary and has no rational justification; it punishes males for an activity non-criminal for females; and, overlooks the equal capacity of females to commit the same act.
Section 2412.5 Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956) is as follows:
Any male person who enters upon real property whether the original entry is legal or not, and thereafter prys or peeps through a window or other opening in a dwelling or other building structure for the lewd, licentious and indecent purpose of spying upon the occupants thereof, commonly called a 'Peeping Tom,' shall be guilty of a felonious trespass; and upon conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state penitentiary not more than five years.
In Brown v. State, 244 Miss. 78, 140 So.2d 565 (1962), one of the assignments of error was that Section 2412.5 was unconstitutional as class legislation; that it denied appellant equal protection under the law; and, that males could be prosecuted for felonious trespass under the statute which did not provide for the prosecution of females under the same statute. The Court held the statute constitutional although no comment was made in the opinion with reference to this assignment of error.
The Legislature, in adopting Section 2412.5, intended to protect persons from being spied upon for lewd, licentious and indecent purposes and to make people feel secure in their homes free from the worry of trespassers being able to form schemes for committing such sordid acts as rape or other sex crimes. Lewd, licentious and indecent spying may afford the opportunity to plot the commission of rape or other sex crimes, the ultimate crimes this Section seeks to deter. We are of the opinion that the Legislature, by this statute, took note of the fundamental difference between men and women, and recognized that looking at persons for a lewd, licentious and indecent purpose is an activity traditionally ascribed to men rather...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cnty.
...219 N.W.2d 492, 495-496 (Iowa 1974); State v. Bell, 377 So.2d 303 (La.1979); State v. Rundlett, 391 A.2d 815 (Me.1978); Green v. State, 270 So.2d 695 (Miss.1972); In re J.D.G., 498 S.W.2d 786, 792-793 (Mo.1973); State v. Meloon, 116 N.H. 669, 366 A.2d 1176 (1976); State v. Thompson, 162 N.J......
-
Hampton v. State
...a “sentence within the limits of the statute is not cruel or unusual.” Clanton v. State, 279 So.2d 599, 602 (Miss.1973) ; Green v. State, 270 So.2d 695 (Miss.1972). ¶ 12. “[A] sentence is not illegal unless it exceeds the maximum statutory penalty for the crime.” Grayer, 120 So.3d at 969 (e......
-
Foster v. State
...a “sentence within the limits of the statute is not cruel or unusual.” Clanton v. State, 279 So.2d 599, 602 (Miss.1973) ; Green v. State, 270 So.2d 695 (Miss.1972).¶ 14. Foster cites Stewart v. State (Stewart I), 372 So.2d 257 (Miss.1979), for the proposition that he received an illegal sen......
-
Foster v. State, 2011-CT-01796-SCT
...a "sentence within the limits of the statute is not cruel or unusual." Clanton v. State, 279 So. 2d 599, 602 (Miss. 1973); Green v. State, 270 So. 2d 695 (Miss. 1972).¶14. Foster cites Stewart v. State (Stewart I), 372 So. 2d 257 (Miss. 1979), for the proposition that he received an illegal......