Merton v. State
Decision Date | 14 October 1986 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 36 |
Citation | 500 So.2d 1301 |
Parties | Harry Lewis MERTON, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
George E. Trawick, Ariton, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Robert B. Rinehart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Harry L. Merton was convicted of the first degree rape and sodomy of an eight-year-old child. Sentence was life imprisonment in each case, and a victim compensation fine of $5000. Four issues are raised on appeal.
The defendant argues that Alabama's first degree rape statute, § 13A-6-61, Code of Alabama 1975, and first degree sodomy statute, § 13A-6-63, are unconstitutional and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the statutes criminalize "conduct by unmarried people as a class when the same conduct is not criminal for married people as a class." Appellant's brief, p. 17. See Annot., 24 A.L.R.4th 105 (1983).
In Williams v. State, 494 So.2d 819 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), this Court found Alabama's statutes defining sodomy unconstitutional:
The "marital exemption" is found in the statutory definition of "deviate sexual intercourse" which only involves "persons not married to each other." Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-6-60(2). However, rather than invalidating the statutes in their entirety, this Court extended the benefits of the sodomy statutes to those persons who had been excluded from the scope of the statute:
In Williams, this Court specifically noted:
Alabama's rape statutes also contain a "marital exemption." Section 13A-6-61 defines rape in the first degree as follows:
The definition of "female" is limited, by § 13A-6-60(4), to the following:
(Emphasis added.)
The principal case on which this Court relied, in Williams v. State, supra, in holding the Alabama sodomy statutes unconstitutional was People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y.2d 152, 474 N.E.2d 567, 485 N.Y.S.2d 207 (1984). As we recognized in Williams v. State, the Liberta court's "discussion focused on the 'marital exemption' for rape." Like the case before us, Liberta dealt with an equal protection challenge to both the first degree sodomy and first degree rape statutes. The New York provisions at issue in Liberta are virtually identical to the corresponding Alabama statutes. Compare N.Y.Penal Law § 130.35 (McKinney 1975) ( ) and § 130.00(4) ("female" defined) with Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-6-61(a)(1) ( ) and § 13A-6-60(4) ("female" defined).
The reasoning in Liberta is sound. We adopt it as our own:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. M.D.
...have held, however, that marital exemptions in similar statutes violated the equal protection clause. (See, e.g., Merton v. State (Ala.Crim.App.1986), 500 So.2d 1301, 1302-05 (marital exemption to forcible rape statute unconstitutional); Williams v. State (Ala.Crim.App.1986), 494 So.2d 819,......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...have held that the failure to give such an oath or affirmation is deemed waived if not objected to in the trial court. Merton v. State, 500 So.2d 1301 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).”Williams v. Harris, 80 So.3d 273, 277 (Ala.Civ.App.2011).2 On September 25, 2014, and November 20, 2014, the State file......
-
L.M.F. v. C.D.F.
...held that the failure to give such an oath or affirmation is deemed waived if not objected to in the trial court. Merton v. State, 500 So. 2d 1301 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) ; Saxton v. State, 389 So. 2d 541, 543 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) (‘If a witness is allowed to give evidence before the jury ......
-
Hawkins v. State, 4 Div. 61
...accused a material element of second degree rape). In so holding, we disavow any language to the contrary found in Merton v. State, 500 So.2d 1301, 1306 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). We would note that in spite of the language contained in Merton, the age of the accused in that case was sufficiently p......