Stewart v. State
| Decision Date | 30 October 1975 |
| Citation | 534 S.W.2d 875 |
| Parties | Douglas Ray STEWART, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant-in-Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Walker Gwinn, Asst. Public Defender, Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
R. A. Ashley, Jr., Atty. Gen., Robert H. Roberts, Advocate Gen., Nashville, Hugh W. Stanton, Jr., Dist. Atty. Gen., Wayne Emmons, Asst. Dist Atty. Gen., Memphis, for defendant in error.
OPINION
The appellant, Douglas Ray Stewart, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, brings this appeal contesting the dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief by the Honorable James C. Beasley, Judge of Division IV of the Shelby County Criminal Court.
The petitioner's complaints are that the rape statute under which he was convicted, T.C.A. § 39--3701, is unconstitutional and that the State suppressed evidence at his original trial.
With respect to the constitutional question, the 'Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,' rendered by the able trial judge, contain the following:
'As to the novel attack upon the constitutionality of Section 39--3701, 'Rape defined', being sexually discriminatory and thereby violative of due process and equal protection of laws, such attack must fail although, it is pursued from two fronts. The first being that by definition only a male can commit the offense of rape and the second, as urged in oral argument, that a male cannot be the victim of rape and therefore the Petitioner under either or both has been denied equal protection of the law.
'Conceding the language of Section 39--3701 does prescribe (sic) the physical act of a male only in committing rape is not determinative of the issues in that under the laws of this State a female can be convicted and punished for the crime of rape as an Aider and Abettor or as an Accessory before the Fact under Section 39--107 though 39--110 T.C.A. and see Bryson v. State (195 Tenn. 313) 259 S.W.2d 535.
'The argument that only a female can be the victim of rape is academic in so far as this case is concerned but in passing the Court would observe that the laws of this State do protect males from unlawful sexual assault and abuse.
'If the Petitioner is seeking to challenge the physiological differences of the male and female he has picked the wrong forum.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alley v. Bell
...is a perfunctory discussion of the right of self-representation, and is completely off the point. Similarly, Stewart v. State, 534 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975), has nothing to do with the issue before the Court. Carroll v. State, 532 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1975), merely notes in......
-
State v. Rivera
...732 (1976); People v. Gould, 188 Colo. 113, 532 P.2d 953 (1975); Brooks v. State, 24 Md.App. 334, 330 A.2d 670 (1975); Stewart v. State, 534 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn.Cr.App.1975); Finley v. State, 527 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); State v. Kelly, 111 Ariz. 181, 526 P.2d 720 (1974), cert. denied, 42......
-
Green v. Wyrick
...g., State v. Craig, 169 Mont. 150, 545 P.2d 649 (1976); People v. Reilly, 50 A.D.2d 1089, 377 N.Y.S.2d 329 (Sup.1976); Stewart v. State, 534 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn.App.1976); People v. Gould, 188 Colo. 113, 532 P.2d 953 (1975); People v. Mackey, 46 Cal.App.3d 755, 120 Cal.Rptr. 157 (1975); Brooks......
-
Country v. Parratt
...(1976); State v. Craig, 169 Mont. 150, 545 P.2d 649 (1976); People v. Wheeler, 50 A.D.2d 1089, 377 N.Y.S.2d 329 (1975); Stewart v. State, 534 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn.App.1975); People v. Gould, 188 Colo. 113, 532 P.2d 953 (1975); Brooks v. State, 24 Md.App. 334, 330 A.2d 670 (1975); State v. Price......