Harvey v. State
| Decision Date | 27 January 1909 |
| Citation | 115 S.W. 1193 |
| Parties | HARVEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; W. C. Wear, Judge.
Arthur Harvey was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals. Conviction of sodomy reversed.
Ivy, Hill & Greenwood, for appellant. V. L. Shurtleff, Asst. Co. Atty., A. M. Frazier, Co. Atty., and F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant appeals from a conviction in the court below, charged with sodomy.
The charge is too horrible to contemplate and too revolting to discuss. We think the indictment does not charge an offense against the laws of this state. Almost this identical question was discussed and decided in the case of Lewis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W. 372, 61 Am. St. Rep. 831. A similar transaction was held not to be sodomy, under the statute, in the case of Prindle v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 551, 21 S. W. 360, 37 Am. St. Rep. 833. We think that some legislation should be enacted covering these unnatural crimes.
For the reason that no offense is charged in the indictment against the laws of this state, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Wade
...Since sodomy was not defined — indeed, "the charge was too horrible to contemplate and too revolting to discuss," Harvey v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 199, 115 S.W. 1193 (1909) — Texas courts "looked to the common law for the elements of this crime," and surprisingly held that this statute did not......
-
Barton v. State
...Prindle v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 551, 21 S.W. 360, 37 Am.St.Rep. 833; Mitchell v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 535, 95 S.W. 500; Harvey v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 199, 115 S.W. 1193; Lewis v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 37, 35 S.W. 372, 61 Am. St. Rep. 831; Davis v. Brown, 27 Ohio St. 326 (definition was expand......
-
State v. Altwatter
...234, 125 N.W. 594, 21 Ann. Cas. 335, 27 L. R. A., N. S., 478; Bailey v. State, 57 Neb. 706, 73 Am. St. 540, 78 N.W. 284; Harvey v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 199, 115 S.W. 1193; Lewis v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. 37, 61 Am. St. 831, S.W. 372; Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 133 Ky. 720, 118 S.W. 943; Davis v.......
-
Barton v. State
... ... within the proper power of the legislatures, where we assume ... it belongs. See Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 133 Ky ... 720, 118 S.W. 943; Prindle v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R ... 551, 21 S.W. 360, 37 Am.St.Rep. 833; Mitchell v ... State, 49 Tex.Cr.R. 535, 95 S.W. 500; Harvey v ... State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 199, 115 S.W. 1193; Lewis v ... State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 37, 35 S.W. 372, 61 Am.St.Rep. 831; ... Davis v. Brown, 27 Ohio St. 326 (definition was ... expanded following this decision by statute); Ausman v ... Veal, 10 Ind. 355, 71 Am.Dec. 331; Estes v ... Carter, 10 ... ...