State v. Pratt

Citation151 Me. 236,116 A.2d 924
PartiesSTATE of Maine v. Warren PRATT.
Decision Date19 September 1955
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

Frederic S. Sturgis, County Atty., Arthur A. Peabody, Asst. County Atty., Portland, for plaintiff.

I. Edward Cohen, Portland, for defendant.

Before FELLOWS, C. J., and WILLIAMSON, WEBBER, BELIVEAU and THAXTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In an indictment in proper form the State alleged that the respondent 'did then and there commit the crime against nature with mankind, to wit, did feloniously cause and entice a certain female, to wit, one (naming her) to perform the act of manual manipulation upon the sexual parts of him, the said Warren Pratt, against the order of nature,' etc. Respondent seasonably demurred. The presiding Justice overruled the demurrer, expressly citing in support of that action State v. Townsend, 145 Me. 384, 71 A.2d 517. Respondent's exceptions test that action.

The indictment does not set forth the age of the alleged victim. We gather from the oral argument of respondent's counsel that he does not press his argument that that omission is fatal to the indictment. The argument, even though pressed, would not avail. Where the crime against nature is charged, the age of the victim or pathic is not material and there is no requirement that it be alleged.

R.S.1954, Chap. 134, Sec. 3 provides, 'Whoever commits the crime against nature, with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished * * *.' The Statute is silent as to the particular acts which are thereby forbidden. It has always been recognized that when a statute defines an offense in the generic terms of the common law, without more particular definition, courts must resort to the common law to ascertain the particular acts which may constitute the crime. Very divergent views have resulted when the courts of many jurisdictions have attempted to apply this test to 'the crime against nature'. Our Court has consistently interpreted this statute as being very broad in its scope. It was held to include penetration per os (fellatio) in State v. Cyr, 135 Me. 513, 198 A. 743; and likewise in State v. Townsend, supra, to include the equally base and degraded acts which constitute what is known in medical jurisprudence as cunnilingus. The Legislature has not seen fit to amend the act since these decisions were rendered and may be deemed to have accorded tacit approval to that breadth of definition. But it does not follow that every act of sexual perversion is encompassed within the definition of 'the crime...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • In re J.D., COA 18-1036
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • August 20, 2019
    ...that "evidence of condition, position, and proximity of the parties ... may afford sufficient evidence of penetration"); State v. Pratt , 151 Me. 236, 116 A.2d 924, 925 (1955) (holding that "the fact of penetration may be proved by circumstantial evidence as by the position of the parties a......
  • State v. Whittemore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 8, 1961
    ...... * * * The crime against nature involving mankind is not complete without some penetration, however slight, of a natural orifice of the body. The penetration need not be to any particular distance.' State v. Pratt, 151 Me. 236, 116 A.2d 924, 925; State v. Hill, 179 Miss. 732, 176 So. 719 (Miss.); People v. Angier, 44 Cal.App.2d 417, 112 P.2d 659 (Cal.); Hopper v. State, Okl.Cr., 302 P.2d 162 (Okl.); State v. Withrow, 142 W.Va. 522, 96 S.E.2d 913 (W. Va.); Wharton v. State, 58 Ga.App. 439, 198 S.E. 823 ......
  • State v. Lowry, s. 437 and 438
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 29, 1965
    ...common-law definition.' 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 21, p. 59; McAdams v. State, 226 Ind. 403, 81 N.E.2d 671 (Ind.1948); State v. Pratt, 151 Me. 236, 116 A.2d 924 (1955); State v. Quatro, 31 N.J.Super. 51, 105 A.2d 913 (1954); State v. Johnson, 293 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.1956). While all federal crime......
  • Yde v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • August 4, 1977
    ...judicial doctrines" but are dealing with past statutory construction. I believe this distinction is critical. In State v. Pratt, 151 Me. 236, 237-38, 116 A.2d 924, 925 (1955), where the State urged that the Court adopt a broader statutory interpretation than that previously given, it was "T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT