State v. Bonanno
| Decision Date | 30 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 46922,46922 |
| Citation | 245 La. 1117,163 So.2d 72 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Peter BONANNO. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Edward G. Koch, Jr., New Orleans, for appellant.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The defendant, Peter Bonanno, charged in a Bill of Information with having, in Orleans Parish, on June 15, 1962, had 'unnatural carnal copulation' with one Daniel Peter Brennan, is appealing from his conviction and sentence thereunder to serve three years at hard labor in the state penitentiary, relying for the reversal thereof on three bills of exceptions reserved during the course of the trial when the judge overruled his motion to quash the information, for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, the basis of all three being that the statute under which he is charged, Article 89 of the Louisiana Criminal Code of 1942, now R.S. 14:89, is unconstitutional in that it is so vague and indefinite, particularly with respect to the phrase 'unnatural carnal copulation,' that the courts are called upon to supply this definition, and, in so doing, usurp the function of the legislative branch of the government, in contravention of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution of Louisiana for 1921.
Article 89 appears in Section 'D' of Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code, the latter being headed 'Sex Offenses Affecting the Family,' and the former bearing the title 'Crime Against Nature.' Insofar as pertinent here, the article provides:
The 'crime against nature' has been denounced as an offense in Louisiana since the adoption of Act No. 50 of 1805, commonly known as the Crimes Act of 1805. Section 2 of this act provides: 'That every person who shall hereafter be duly convicted of * * * the detestable and abominal crime against nature, committed with mankind or beast, shall suffer imprisonment at hard labor for life.' Section 33 of this same act sets out that all crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors mentioned and named in the act were to be taken, intended, and construed according to, and in conformity with, the common law of England. All subsequent amendments and revisions retained these same provisions in essence (Section 5 of Act 120 of 1855 and Section 73 of Act 121 of that same year; Sections 788 and 976 of the Revised Statutes of 1870), no re-enactment varying this early definition and penalty in any substantial degree until the legislature of 1896 added to Section 1 of its Act No. 69 the below underscored portion of the amended statute, which then read as follows: 'Whoever shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or beast With sexual organs, or with the mouth, shall suffer imprisonment at hard labor for Not less than two years and not more than ten years.' The next change in the language denouncing this act as a crime was made in Article 89 as incorporated in the Criminal Code of 1942, and carried over into the Revised Statutes of 1950 as R.S. 14:89, which is as above quoted.
As against the contention, made for the first time in 1882 in State v. Williams, 34 La.Ann. 87, that the pertinent statute (Section 788 of the Revised Statutes of 1870) did not define the crime, or any crime known to the common law, the court held it was known to the common law by the convertible and equivalent names of 'crime against nature,' 'sodomy,' and 'buggery,' concluding that 'The euphemism by which the law describes pecatum illud horrible, does not, in our opinion, leave its meaning doubtful or obscure.'
When the constitutionality of the 1896 act was attacked in 1900 in State v. Vicknair, 52 La.Ann. 1921, 28 So. 273, the court, in refuting this claim, pointed out that 'Some criticism is indulged in concerning the word 'sexual' as thus used, but the purpose of the law would have been as well accomplished if it had been left out entirely, and the statute had read 'crime against nature committed with mankind or beast, * * * with the mouth'; though, no doubt, it must appear that the sexual organ of the one party or the other, either the agent or the pathic, was used, since The crime * * * is a 'carnal copulation by human beings with each other against nature or with a beast,'' citing 2 Bishop New Criminal Law 1191. Although this decision was criticized in State v. Long, 133 La. 580, 63 So. 180, and another attempt there made to have the 1896 statute declared unconstitutional, the court again maintained its validity in the light...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...v. Pierre, 500 So.2d 382 (La.1987); State v. Lindsey, 310 So.2d 89 (La.1975); State v. McCoy, 337 So.2d 192 (La.1976); State v. Bonanno, 245 La. 1117, 163 So.2d 72 (1964). 3. The Statute has also withstood constitutional challenges on the basis of overbreadth. As this court noted in Neal, c......
-
City of Natchitoches v. State
...his conduct is or is not denounced as an offense against the law. State v. Murtes, 232 La. 486, 94 So.2d 446 (1957); State v. Bonanno, 245 La. 1117, 163 So.2d 72 (1964); City of New Orleans v. Kiefer, 246 La. 305, 164 So.2d 336 (1964). It is not essential for the validity of a criminal stat......
-
State v. Mills
...sex or opposite sex" is vague, ambiguous and unconstitutional. LSA-R.S. 14:89 has consistently been held constitutional. State v. Bonanno, 163 So.2d 72 (La.1964); State v. Bluain, 315 So.2d 749 (La.1975); State v. Picchini, 463 So.2d 714 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985), writ den., 468 So.2d 1202 (La......
-
State v. Neal
...Lindsey, 310 So.2d 89, concurring opinion, 310 So.2d 92 (La.1975); State v. Young, 249 La. 1053, 193 So.2d 243 (1966); State v. Bonanno, 245 La. 1117, 163 So.2d 72 (1914); State v. Long, 133 La. 580, 63 So. 180 (1913); State v. Vicknair, 52 La.Ann. 1921, 28 So. 273 (1900); State v. Williams......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...challenge rejected). Perkins v. North Carolina, 234 R Supp. 333 (W.D.N.C. 1964) (two adult males engaging in fellatio). State v. Bonanno, 163 So. 2d 72 (La. 1964) (two adult men convicted of unnatural carnal State v. Milne, 187 A.2d 136 (R.I. 1962) (adult male induced 16 year old male to go......