Sanders v. State, 27276.
| Decision Date | 25 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 27276.,27276. |
| Citation | 25 N.E.2d 995,216 Ind. 663 |
| Parties | SANDERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Everett Sanders was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Vanderburgh Circuit Court; Oscar Lanphar, Judge.
John L. Sanders and W. D. Hardy, both of Evansville, for appellant.
Omer Stokes Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Walter O. Lewis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged by affidavit of the crime of sodomy as defined by section 10-4221, Burns' Ind.St.1933, Sec. 2603, Baldwin's 1934, to which he pleaded not guilty. A trial by a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty, upon which the court rendered judgment. A motion for a new trial was overruled.
On appeal the appellant relies upon the specifications that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law; that the court erred in giving instruction No. 3 on its own motion and in refusing instruction No. 7 tendered by appellant, and in refusing to permit the appellant to call additional witnesses to establish defendant's general reputation for morality and chastity.
The principal contention of appellant is that the evidence does not establish the crime of sodomy as defined at common law. The statute in this state defines the crime as ‘the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind or beast.’ This court has held in common with the courts of other jurisdictions under similar statutes that the statutory definition includes both common law sodomy and acts of a bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified contrary to nature. Glover v. State, 1913, 179 Ind. 459, 101 N.E. 629, 45 L.R.A.,N.S., 473; Connell v. State, 1939, 215 Ind. 318, 19 N.E.2d 267;Young v. State, 1923, 194 Ind. 221, 141 N.E. 309.
Objection is made to instruction No. 3, given by the court, wherein it is stated that the ‘mere fact that an affidavit has been filed against the defendant charging him with an alleged crime, does not raise any presumption that the defendant is guilty of any crime and you must not take the filing of the affidavit as raising any presumption of guilt until you, and each of you, are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, by the evidence here introduced, before you, without reference to the nature of the affidavit, that the defendant is guilty of the crime covered by this affidavit, there can be no conviction.’ The objection is that the ‘nature of the affidavit’ has no bearing upon the guilt or innocence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. State
...four cases: Glover v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 459, 101 N.E. 629; Young v. State (1923), 194 Ind. 221, 141 N.E. 309; Sanders v. State (1940), 216 Ind. 663, 25 N.E.2d 995; Estes v. State (1964), 244 Ind. 691, 195 N.E.2d 471. These four cases clearly demonstrate the problem that appellee claims......
-
State v. Robbins, 27753.
......459, 101 N.E 629, 45 L.R.A.,N.S., 473; Young v. State, 1924, 194 Ind. 221, 141 N.E. 309;Connell v. State, 1939, 215 Ind. 318, 19 N.E.2d 267;Sanders v. State, 1940, 216 Ind. 663, 25 N.E.2d 995. Examination of the records in each of them reveals that in the Young and Connell cases the misconduct of ......
-
State v. Robbins
......629, 45 L.R.A.,N.S.,. 473; Young v. State, 1924, 194 Ind. 221, 141 N.E. 309; Connell v. State, 1939, 215 Ind. 318, 19 N.E.2d. 267; Sanders v. State, 1940, 216 Ind. 663, 25 N.E.2d. 995. Examination of the records in each of them reveals that. in the Young and Connell cases the ......
-
State v. Milne
...that court in Murray v. State, 236 Ind. 688, at page 693, 143 N.E.2d 290, at page 292, quotes with approval from Sanders v. State, 216 Ind. 663, 25 N.E.2d 995. In that case the court said at page 664, 25 N.E.2d at page 995: 'The statute in this state defines the crime as 'the abominable and......