State v. Kasakoff
| Decision Date | 03 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 962,962 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dion Ross KASAKOFF, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence following his conviction of the crime of sodomy, contrary to § 40A--9--6, N.M.S.A.1953 (2nd Repl.Vol. 6).
We affirm.
The complaining witness, a female guest in defendant's motel, testified that she had a date with the defendant and was driven to an outlying area near Carlsbad where she was forced, through fear, to engage in an act of sodomy with the defendant. The defendant denied committing the act.
Defendant's principal ground for reversal is that the sodomy statute, supra, 'is void on its face for an unconstitutional overbreadth' in that it prohibits private, consensual acts of adult persons in violation of the United States Constitution's 'unspecified' right of privacy as enunciated in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965).
Since the state's evidence was that the act was committed by force and the defendant denied committing the act, he cannot now argue that the incident was a consensual act between two adult persons. The New Mexico Supreme Court held, in State v. Hines, 78 N.M. 471, 432 P.2d 827 (1967), that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by a person whose rights are affected thereby; that the complainant must allege in what manner his constitutional rights are adversely affected; and that an appellate court does not sit to decide abstract constitutional questions.
Since the defendant does not claim nor argue that he is a member of the class discriminated against by the sodomy statute or that his rights have been impaired by the application of the statute to him, he lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the act. State v. Hines, supra. See also Washington v. Rodriguez, 82 N.M. 428, 483 P.2d 309 (Ct.App.1971).
The defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty. There was a conflict in the evidence but this conflict was for the jury to resolve. State v. Mora, 81 N.M. 631, 471 P.2d 201 (Ct.App.1970). Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, as we must, we cannot say that the verdict was not supported...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Armstrong, 1004
...The constitutional attack on the sodomy statute here is substantially the same as the challenge interposed in State v. Kasakoff, 84 N.M. 404, 503 P.2d 1182 (Ct.App.1972). In Kasakoff, we held with respect to defendant's standing to attack the statute on constitutional 'Since the state's evi......
-
State v. Thompson
...attacks against consensual sodomy where the defendant is prosecuted for acts of forcible sodomy. We note for example, State v. Kasakoff, 84 N.M. 404, 503 P.2d 1182; and Hughes v. State, 14 Md.App. 497, 287 A.2d 299, which hold that where a defendant is convicted of forcible sodomy, he lacks......
-
State v. Sanchez
...the dissent. Rather, we rely on State v. Armstrong, 85 N.M. 234, 511 P.2d 560 (Ct.App.) decided May 23, 1973 and State v. Kasakoff, 84 N.M. 404, 503 P.2d 1182 (Ct.App.1972), where we held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the act. Defendants in this case also lack We affirm t......
- State v. Lopez
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...(two adult males picked up two minor female hitchhikers; convicted of rape but acquitted of crime against nature). State v. Kasakoff, 503 P.2d 1182 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972) (adult male coercive sodomy during course of a date). State v. Kennedy, 209 S.E.2d 838 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974) (crime against......