State v. Farmer, Criminal 951
| Decision Date | 01 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 951 |
| Citation | 148 P.2d 1002,61 Ariz. 266 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES JORDAN FARMER and WALTER McCLENAHAN, Defendants |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
On certification from the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Arthur T. LaPrade, Judge. Question answered.
Mr James A. Walsh, County Attorney and Mr. Fred J. Hyder, Deputy County Attorney, for Plaintiff.
Mr. V L. Hash, for Defendants.
The trial court seemed to entertain some doubt as to the validity of the law the defendants are charged with having violated and accordingly has certified the question of its validity under section 44-2401, Arizona Code Annotated 1939 to this court for a decision.
The information charges the defendants with violating section 43-407, Id., reading as follows:
The information is in the language of the statute, and if the statute is valid the information is good.
Counsel for defendants enumerates five reasons why the statute is unconstitutional and void, and we have carefully examined each one of these reasons and can find nothing to support them. He fails to call our attention to any cases that have held with, or support, his contentions.
Our statute is radically different from the California statute concerning the same subject, which was by the courts of that state declared unconstitutional. Ex parte Lockett, 179 Cal. 581, 178 P. 134. This case is a very interesting one and decides a question similar to, but not like, the one here. The California statute, Pen.Code, § 288A as added by St. 1915, p. 1022 read:
"The acts technically known as fellatio and cunnilingus are hereby declared to be felonies and any person convicted of the commission of either thereof shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than fifteen years."
The words "fellatio" and "cunnilingus" are not a part of section 43-407, supra. They are the headnote placed there by the compiler or revisor of our statutes, and do not enter into the definition of the crime at all. If our statute were like the California statute, we would feel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bateman
...v. Clark, supra; State v. Potts, 75 Ariz. 211, 254 P.2d 1023 (1953); Faber v. State, 62 Ariz. 16, 152 P.2d 671 (1944); State v. Farmer, 61 Ariz. 266, 148 P.2d 1002 (1944); State v. Poole, 59 Ariz. 44, 122 P.2d 415 (1942); Weaver v. Territory of Arizona, 14 Ariz. 268, 127 P. 724 (1912). When......
-
Blake v. State
...179 Or. 282, 169 P.2d 587; State v. Brazell, 126 Or. 579, 269 P. 884; People v. Coleman, 53 Cal.App.2d 18, 127 P.2d 309; State v. Farmer, 61 Ariz. 266, 148 P.2d 1002. The appellant contends that because the statute begins with a prohibition against 'oral' perversion, the words 'any other un......
-
State v. Cota
...so that men of common intelligence know its meaning. We noted that the predecessor to A.R.S. § 13-652 was upheld in State of Arizona v. Farmer, 61 Ariz. 266, 148 P.2d 1002. Defendant argues, in effect, that once the words lewd, obscene and indecent are found to be unconstitutionally vague, ......
-
Lovelace v. Clark
...of his contention. A similar challenge was directed to this statute (then Section 43-407, A.C.A.1939) in the case of State of Arizona v. Farmer, 61 Ariz. 266, 148 P.2d 1002 and its constitutionality was there upheld. Other jurisdictions have held likewise. Cf. Blake v. State, 210 Md. 459, 1......