Slaughterback v. State, F-78-192
| Decision Date | 11 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. F-78-192,F-78-192 |
| Citation | 594 P.2d 780 |
| Parties | Chester F. SLAUGHTERBACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Chester L. Slaughterback was charged by information in the District Court, Rogers County, Case No. CRF-77-161, on two counts: Sodomy and Attempted Sodomy. He was found guilty by a jury which recommended that punishment be assessed by the court. The defendant was sentenced to two (2) years' imprisonment on the Attempted Sodomy charge and five (5) years' imprisonment on the Sodomy charge, both sentences to run concurrently.
Inasmuch as the defendant's sole assignment of error relates to the instructions, no summary of the testimony presented at the trial is necessary. The 55-year-old defendant contends that since there was evidence of the victim's consent to the acts charged, it was error for the court to refuse to give his requested instructions 1, 2 and 3, dealing with corroboration and consent, and the court's restricting defense counsel on matters argued during closing argument.
In Cole v. State, 83 Okl.Cr. 254, 175 P.2d 376 (1946), we held that where evidence is presented to the jury raising a question as to whether the prosecuting witness in a sodomy prosecution consented to the commission of the acts charged, the jury should be given general instructions following the statute forbidding conviction on an accomplice's uncorroborated testimony see 22 O.S.1971, § 742 and, further, general instructions on the sufficiency of corroborating evidence. In the case at bar, the prosecuting witness testified that he had remained in the company of the defendant from 10:30 p. m., August 7, 1977, until 11:00 a. m., August 9, 1977. There was no testimony upon the part of the witness as to any force, threat, or fear that encouraged the witness to remain with the defendant. In fact, the defendant left the witness alone in the defendant's hotel room, and the witness did not leave nor attempt to leave the premises then or any other time. The evidence presented revealed that the prosecuting witness was a 16-year-old male, junior high school student who had a learning disability and had been in special education classes for all of his nine years of education. The trial transcript further shows that at times the witness was unresponsive to questions, and the State had to carefully lead him in his responses to questions. This Court stated in the second paragraph of the Syllabus of Cole v. State, supra, that "A person may by reason of his age or mental unsoundness be legally incapable of consenting to the act of sodomy," however, the Court did not address itself to this issue in the body of its opinion.
Legal consent presupposes an intelligence capable of understanding the act, its nature, and possible consequences. This degree of intelligence may exist with an impaired and feeble intellect, or it may not. Save in exceptional cases, mental capacity to give legal consent must remain a question of fact for the jury. See Adams v. State, 5 Okl.Cr. 347, 114 P. 347 (1911); Hacker v. State, 73 Okl.Cr. 119, 118 P.2d 408 (1941). While these cases involved the crime of rape with a specific statutory definition involving consent, we think the language therein defining legal consent is applicable in the case at bar.
There is no chronological age limitation for consent in 21 O.S.1971, § 886 and § 887, the statutes defining a crime against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Adoption of the 2018 Revisions to the Okla. Unif. Jury Instructions-Criminal
...as a matter of law a child under the age of sixteen cannot consent to oral or anal sodomy. In doing so, it overruled Slaughterback v. State, 1979 OK CR 28, 594 P.2d 780._OUJI-CR 4-138ARAPE AND SEX CRIMES -- CONSENT OF MINOR You are instructed that as a matter of law a minor under the age of......
-
Post v. State
...language, the Crime Against Nature prohibits consensual, as well as nonconsensual, acts of unnatural copulation. See Slaughterback v. State, 594 P.2d 780 (Okl.Cr.1979). Accordingly, the jury was instructed that consensual intercourse would not constitute rape, 2 but no mention was made of c......
-
Kimbro v. State
...applicable to rape apply to sodomy and our earlier pronouncement in Martin, Id. To the extent our previous holding in Slaughterback v. State, 594 P.2d 780 (Okl.Cr.1979) conflicts with our holding today, it is expressly overruled. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly instructed......
-
Hinkle v. State
...is no longer viable and should be reversed. Additionally, this Court should not disregard its previous decision in Slaughterback v. State, 594 P.2d 780, 781-782 (Okl.Cr.1979), which recognizes that sodomy is no less a crime if it is committed with a consenting Finally, when the Legislature ......