State v. Poole, Criminal 924
| Decision Date | 24 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 924 |
| Citation | 59 Ariz. 44,122 P.2d 415 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff, v. HARVEY POOLE, Defendant |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
On certification from the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Arthur T. LaPrade, Judge. Questions (two) answered.
Mr Richard F. Harless, County Attorney, and Mr. Darrell R Parker, Deputy County Attorney, for Plaintiff.
Mr Paul M. Roca, for Defendant.
The sufficiency of the information being raised in the Superior Court of Maricopa County where the matter is pending, the cause, with the consent of defendant's counsel, was certified to this court for a pre-trial determination of the following questions:
The information charges the defendant with "the infamous crime against nature," in that on or about December 31 1941, he feloniously violated section 43-406, Arizona Code 1939, "by an act of sexual intercourse with a beast, to-wit: a Holstein cow."
The section of the statute referred to in the information reads:
This reference in the information to the statute for a description of the offense charged is permissible under the statute. Subdivision (2), section 44-711. If, therefore, the statute states an offense, the information, being in the language of the statute, is good.
Under the statute the offense as between human beings may be committed in either the mouth or rectum, because such acts are against nature. As between a human being and a beast, any act of copulation is against nature.
The term "crime against nature" as known at the common law embraced both sodomy and bestiality, the same as felony embraces murder, larceny, etc. Ausman, v. Veal, 10 Ind. 355, 71 Am. Dec. 331.
"Bestiality is a connection between a human being and a brute of the opposite sex." Id. See, also, 58 Corpus Juris 787, § 1, note (d).
Section 43-406, supra, defines how the "crime against nature" or "sodomy" may be committed in two ways: one way by a human being with another human being, and the other way be a human being with a beast.
In State v. Johnson, 44 Utah 18, 137 P. 632, a well-considered case, the Supreme Court of Utah said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anthony
...958; State v. Young, 140 Or. 228, 13 P. (2d) 604; State v. Start, 65 Or. 178, 132 P. 512, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 266. And see State v. Poole, 59 Ariz. 44, 122 P. (2d) 415. Part two of the present statute prohibits any act or practice of sexual perversity either with mankind or beast. Part three r......
-
State v. Bateman
...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 a statute has been interpreted in terms of identif......
-
State v. Bonynge
...sexual connection between a man or a woman and an animal." Carrier, 74 Mich.App. at 166, 254 N.W.2d at 38; see also State v. Poole, 59 Ariz. 44, 47, 122 P.2d 415, 416 (1942). To give effect to the term "carnally know" in both the Minnesota bestiality and sodomy statutes, we must construe th......
-
State v. Mallory
...proposition. State v. Burgess, 82 Ariz. 200, 310 P.2d 822 (1957); State v. Gordon, 79 Ariz. 184, 285 P.2d 758 (1955); State v. Poole, 59 Ariz. 44, 122 P.2d 415 (1942); Adkins v. State, 42 Ariz. 534, 28 P.2d 612 (1934). Section (B) of Rule 115 permits the incorporation of the language of a s......