State v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 31 January 1867
• Citation: 29 Tex. 44
• Parties: THE STATE v. WARREN CAMPBELL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

29 Tex. 44

THE STATE

v.WARREN CAMPBELL.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January, 1867.

Article 399 c of the penal code reads as follow: “If any person shall commit, with mankind or beast, the abominable and detestable crime against nature, he shall be deemed guilty of sodomy, and, on conviction thereof, he shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than five nor more than fifteen years.” Pas. Dig. art. 2033. It is not enough to charge this offense in the very words of the statute. The facts which put the defendant upon notice of the specific act must be stated.

It is a general, but not a universal rule, that an offense created by a statute may be charged in the words of the statute. More particularity is sometimes required, from the obvious intention of the legislature, or from the application of known principles of law.

If every fact necessary to constitute the offense is charged, or necessarily implied, by following the language of the statute, the indictment is sufficient; otherwise, not.

APPEAL from Karnes. The case was tried before Hon. BENJAMIN F. NEAL, one of the district judges.

The indictment charged that “Warren Campbell, a freedman of color, with a certain mare, of color commonly called a bay, did willfully and feloniously commit the abominable and detestable crime against nature.” The defendant excepted to the indictment, that the offense was not sufficiently described. The exception was sustained, and the indictment quashed, from which the state appealed.

F. C. Hume, for the state. As to the third exception to the indictment, sustained by the court below, it is respectfully submitted that the offense charged is fully and clearly defined in the statute, and a penalty affixed thereto. Pas. Dig. art. 2033.

The design of the legislature in enacting the penal code was “to define in plain language every offense against the laws of the state, and affix to each offense its proper punishment.” Pas. Dig. art. 1603. And it is further declared, that no person shall be punished for any act or omission, as a penal offense, unless the same is expressly defined and the penalty affixed by the written law of this state.” Pas. Dig. art. 1605.

The question arising here is, whether such an offense as sodomy is set forth in the statute in definite terms, and it is thought that this question cannot for a moment be entertained, as there can be no doubt as to the meaning of “the abominable and detestable crime against nature,” the words having never been used to signify any other offense than that of sodomy. 9 Bac. Abr. 158; 4 Bla. Com. 214; 1 Jac. Law Dic. 375; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 47, 48.

The court erred in sustaining the fourth exception, as the indictment embraced every particularity necessary to its validity; for, in general, it is sufficient to describe an offense in the words of the statute. United States v. Lancaster, 2 McLean, 431; State v. Mitchell, 6 Miss. 147; State v. Helm, 6 Miss. 263.

An indictment charging a statute offense in the language of the statute, and so plainly that the nature of the offense may be understood by the jury, is sufficient. Camp v. The State, 3 Kelly, 417.

No brief for the appellee has been furnished to the reporter.

DONLEY, J.

The law, for the alleged violation of which this indictment is found, provides, that “If any person shall commit with mankind or beast the abominable and detestable crime against nature, he shall be deemed guilty of sodomy.” Pas. Dig. art. 2033.

The charge in the indictment...