Stephens v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1972 |
| Citation | 489 S.W.2d 542 |
| Parties | Richard STEPHENS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard H. Winningham, Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., William B. Hubbard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, John W. Goza, Jr., and Lawrence E. Young, Asst. Dist. Attys. Gen., Chattanooga, for defendant in error.
Richard Stephens was convicted in the Criminal Court of Hamilton County of a crime against nature and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He filed his appeal in the nature of a writ of error insisting that the conviction cannot stand because (1) the crime for which he was convicted as referred to in our statute, T.C.A. 39--707, is unconstitutionally vague and (2) the victim's testimony is uncorroborated. We find no merit in the assignments and affirm the judgment.
T.C.A. 39--707 merely fixes the penalty for 'Crimes against nature, either with mankind or any beast'. The expression is a euphemism for the particular acts that constitute the offense of sodomy at common law. Therefore it is necessary to resort to the common law for a definition of the crime and a description of the acts. In its narrower sense sodomy is the carnal copulation between two human beings per anus, or by a human being in any manner with a beast. In its broader sense it is the carnal copulation by human beings with each other against nature or with a beast in which sense it includes all acts of unnatural copulation. Our courts probably accept the broader meaning since they have held that the proscribed acts may be per os as well as per anus. 48 Am.Jur., Sodomy, Secs. 1 and 2; 81 C.J.S. Sodomy § 1; Fisher v. State, 197 Tenn. 594, 277 S.W.2d 340 (1955).
Since crime against nature means the common law offense of sodomy and the crime is well defined and described at common law, T.C.A. 39--707 is not unconstitutionally vague. There is no danger that some kind of sexual perversion apart from unnatural carnal copulation, unnatural sexual intercourse, could be embraced in the definition and description as plaintiff in error contends. The assignment is overruled.
According to the proof, the victim was a boy from Minnesota 19 years old who was wandering around over the United States on a motorbike. While passing through Hamilton County he was arrested and jailed on charges of violating the traffic laws and carrying a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Westcott
...Lundy v. State, 521 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975); Locke v. State, 501 S.W.2d 826 (Tenn.Crim.App.1973); Stephens v. State, 489 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn.Crim.App.1972).7 Appellant does not challenge to this Court the sufficiency of the evidence relating to his conviction for attempted rape. The er......
-
Evans v. State
...against nature" prohibited by T.C.A. § 39-707, which has been interpreted as including several oral sex acts. See Stephens v. State, 489 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn.Cr.App.1973). At trial, the judge instructed the jury to the effect that "crime against nature" and "sodomy" were synonymous, and that th......
-
Rose v. Locke
...a later Tennessee decision would have supported the inference that this conduct was not proscribed by the Tennessee statute. Stephens v. State, 489 S.W.2d 542 (1972). In the Stone case, supra, the Florida statute had "been construed to forbid identifiable conduct so that 'interpretation by ......
-
Locke v. Rose, 74-1858
...been applied exclusively as proscribing copulation per anum, Johnson v. State, 201 Tenn. 11, 296 S.W.2d 832 (1956), Stephens v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 542 (1972), and fellatio, Fisher v. State, 197 Tenn. 594, 277 S.W.2d 340 (1955), Sherrill v. State, 204 Tenn. 427, 321 S.W.2d 811 (......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...he admitted to prior convictions for breaking and entering, larceny, aggravated assault, and disorderly conduct). Stephens v. State, 489 S.W.2d 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972) (19 year old boy from Minnesota forced to fellate and engage in anal intercourse with up to 10 adult Stewart v. United St......