State v. Chenault.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 1721.,1721. |
| Citation | 20 N.M. 181,147 P. 283 |
| Parties | STATEv.CHENAULT. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Under section 1349, Comp. Laws 1897, which provides that “any person or persons who shall entice away and seduce or carry off any woman, who may be a minor under the care of her parents, relations or guardian, such person who shall so do, or shall have them in their possession for evil purposes, * * * shall be fined,” etc., the having in possession of a woman of the age and condition described in the statute for the purposes of “unlawful sexual intercourse” is rendered criminal by the statute.
“Unlawful,” as used above, does not necessarily mean contrary to some statute or to the common law, but means “unauthorized by law.”
Appeal from District Court, Roosevelt County; McClure, Judge.
William T. Chenault was convicted of feloniously having in his possession for evil purposes a woman and minor, in violation of Comp. Laws 1897, § 1349, and appeals. Affirmed.
“Unlawful,” as used above, does not necessarily mean contrary to some statute or to the common law, but means “unauthorized by law.”
Compton & Compton, of Portales, and H. D. Terrell, of Silver City, for appellant.
I. L. Grimshaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted on the following count:
“That William T. Chenault, late of the county of Roosevelt, in the state of New Mexico, on the 22d day of December, in the year one thousand and nine hundred and thirteen, at the county of Roosevelt, in said state of New Mexico, one ______, then and there being a woman and minor, to wit, of the age of seventeen years, under the care of her parents, ______, and ______, in said county and state aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously did have in his possession for evil purposes, to wit, for the purpose of unlawful sexual intercourse, contrary,” etc.
The statute is as follows:
“Any person or persons who shall entice away and seduce or carry off any woman, who may be a minor under the care of her parents, relations or guardian, such persons who shall so do, or shall have them in their possession for evil purposes, upon complaint of any person, shall be fined,” etc. Section 1349, Comp. Laws 1897.
[1] Counsel for appellant insist that the words “for evil purposes,” as used in this statute, are so vague and indefinite in their meaning that those whose duty it is to execute the criminal laws cannot say with certainty what acts the Legislature thereby intended to penalize. In this connection the language of the Supreme Court of Vermont in the case of State v. Milliard, 18 Vt. 577, 46 Am. Dec. 170, a prosecution for indecent exposure of the person, strikes us as quite apt:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bull v. Logetronics, Inc., Civ. A. No. 4196.
...699. See also, People v. Wilson, 78 Cal.App.2d 108, 177 P.2d 567, 570; Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837, 840; State v. Chenault, 20 N.M. 181, 147 P. 283, 285; State v. Frazier, 54 Kan. 719, 39 P. 819, 821; State v. Savant, 115 La. 226, 38 So. 974, 975; Baton Rouge Bldg. Trades, etc. ......
-
State v. Pierce
...(1980); State v. Noble, 90 N.M. 360, 563 P.2d 1153 (1977); Territory v. Anderson, 4 N.M. 213, 13 P. 21 (1887); see also State v. Chenault, 20 N.M. 181, 147 P. 283 (1915). Neither CSPM nor CSCM prohibit the touching or penetration of the intimate parts of a minor for purposes of providing re......
-
State v. Minns
...improper or offensive; being or tending to be obscene (an obscene gesture) (obscene language) (an obscene costume)' In State v. Chenault, 20 N.M. 181, 147 P. 283 (1915) the Supreme Court rejected the contention that a statute was void for vagueness and 'Counsel for appellant insist that the......
-
Hatfield v. New Mexico State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
...society to cope with the problem of juvenile delinquency. State v. Harris, supra [105 W.Va. 165, 141 S.E. 637]. As quoted approvingly in the Chenault case [State v. Chenault, 20 N.M. 181, 147 P. 283], from the Supreme Court of Vermont in State v. Millard, 18 Vt. 574, 577, 46 Am.Dec. 170, 't......