State v. Davis, 39504
| Decision Date | 11 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 39504,39504 |
| Citation | 79 So.2d 452,223 Miss. 862 |
| Parties | STATE of Mississippi v. Victor Leon DAVIS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Donald Franks, Booneville, for appelee.
Section 2413, Code of 1942, provides: 'Unnatural intercourse.--Every person who shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years.'
Appellant was indicted under this section. The indictment, omitting formal parts, charged that appellant 'did wilfully and feloniously commit the detestable and abominable crime against nature by having unnatural carnal intercourse with one' (name omitted), 'a female person, by inserting his private sexual organs into her mouth and having her to suck them, he being then and there a male person,' etc.
The lower court sustained a demurrer to this indictment on the ground that sodomy between human beings must be committed per anus and not per os. An early decision under the common law (1817) so held. Some courts have followed it and some have rejected it. The question has never been passed upon in this State. The conflict in the decisions of other states may be found in the discussion of Sodomy in 81 C.J.S., Sec. 1, page 367 et seq.
The Legislature designated the offense covered by the statute as 'Unnatural Intercourse' and not 'Sodomy.' The offense here charged is unnatural, detestable, and abominable, and we hold that it was within the intention of the Legislature to make it a felony. Hence the demurrer should have been overruled. Our views are amply supported by the following cases and by those therein cited: Glover v. State, 179 Ind. 459, 101 N.E. 629, 45 L.R.A.,N.S., 473; State v. Vicknair, 52 La.Ann.1921, 28 So. 273; Lason v. State, 152 Fla. 440, 12 So.2d 305; State v. Fletcher, 174 Kan. 530, 256 P.2d 847; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 198 A. 743; Wharton v. State, 58 Ga.App. 439, 198 S.E. 823.
The judgment of the lower court will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Gay Alliance v. Goudelock
...condemns any intercourse which is unnatural, detestable and abominable, including acts committed per anus or per os, State v. Davis, 223 Miss. 862, 79 So.2d 452 (1955). This is not surprising. The very title of the statute shows it to have been directed against "Unnatural The statute is not......
-
State v. Dietz
...82 Fla. 93, 89 So. 344; State v. Griffin, 175 N.C. 767, 94 S.E. 678; Fisher v. State, 197 Tenn. 594, 277 S.W.2d 340; State v. Davis, 223 Miss. 862, 79 So.2d 452; Ex parte De Ford, 14 Okl.Cr. 133, 168 P. 58; Territory v. Wilson, 26 Haw. 360; State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 198 A. With decisions b......
-
State v. Williams, No. 115,119
...as encompassing the behavior of oral and anal sex. See Miller v. State , 636 So. 2d 391, 396 (Miss. 1994) ; State v. Davis , 223 Miss. 862, 864, 79 So. 2d 452 (1955). Thus, there are two ways a defendant can be convicted—a defendant may perform these acts on a human or animal.Applying Wetri......
-
Miller v. State, 91-KA-00057
...overbreadth, the statute has been interpreted by this Court to embrace acts of fellatio since, at least, 1955. State v. Davis, 223 Miss. 862, 864, 79 So.2d 452, 452-53 (1955). For these reasons, Miller's contention that Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 97-29-59 (1972) is unconstitutionally overbroad can......