Strum v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | 14 |
| Citation | 272 S.W. 359,168 Ark. 1012 |
| Parties | STRUM v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; James H, McCollum. Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
G W. Matthews and J. S. Townsend, for appellant.
H W. Applegate, Attorney General, and John L Carter, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the circuit court of Clark County upon the following indictment:
"The grand jury of Clark County, in the name and by the authority of the State of Arkansas, on oath, accuse the defendant, John Strum, of the crime of buggery; committed as follows, to wit: the said defendant, on the first day of January, 1925, in Clark County, Arkansas, did unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Al Jones, both said defendant and A1 Jones being male persons, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas." From the judgment of conviction he has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court, insisting upon a reversal thereof on account of the alleged insufficiency of the indictment to charge a crime, and the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The indictment is assailed because the crime of buggery is based upon alleged sexual intercourse between appellant and A1 Jones, both being male persons, whereas, it is claimed that said crime can only be committed by copula-tion between a person and a beast, and that an unnatural crime between persons is sodomy. The common-law distinction between the crimes of sodomy and buggery has been practically eliminated in this State by our statutes against such crimes, which are as follows:
"Proof of actual penetration of the body shall be sufficient to sustain an indictment for the crime against nature." Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 2745.
"Every person convicted of sodomy, or buggery, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a period not less than five nor more than twenty-one years." Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 2746.
It will be observed that evidence necessary to convict as well as the punishment is made the same by our statutes. In passing upon the sufficiency of an indictment for sodomy in the case of Smith v. State, 150 Ark. 265, 234 S.W. 32, this court quoted approvingly from Bishop's Criminal Law and Ruling Case Law in the use of the offenses interchangeably, as follows:
"Not alone to protect the public morals, but for other reasons also, sodomy--called sometimes buggery, sometimes the offense against nature, and sometimes the horrible crime not fit to be named among Christians, being a carnal copulation by human beings with each other against nature, or with a beast--is, though committed in secret, highly criminal." 1 Bishop's Criminal Law, 1191.
"The crime of sodomy, broadly and comprehensively speaking, consists of unnatural sexual relations between persons of the same sex, or with beasts, or between persons of different sex, but in an unnatural manner." 8 R. C. L. 364, page 333.
The indictment is not only sufficient under the rule that the offenses are interchangeable, but also under the well-established rule in this State that an indictment is sufficient if the particular facts necessary to constitute the offense are specifically and accurately described, although erroneously named. Herrington v. State, 287 Ark. 228, 697 S.W.2d 899; Kelley v. State, 102 Ark. 651, 145 S.W. 556; Speer v. State, 130 Ark. 457, 198 S.W. 113; Harris v. State, 140 Ark. 46, 215 S.W. 620. The indictment in the case specifically charges appellant with having had sexual intercourse with Al Jones, both of them being male persons, and it is immaterial that it is named buggery, since the name will follow the particular facts set forth in the indictment.
The evidence is attacked as being insufficient to support the verdict upon the alleged grounds, first, that there was no penetration by appellant, and second, that there was no substantial corroboration of the testimony of the accomplices in the crime who testified against appellant.
(1). It is true that our statutes provide that actual penetration of the body shall be sufficient to convict, but this does not mean, as contended by appellant, that the pathic cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. State
...our conclusion in Connor. The mere fact that a participant is a minor does not prevent his consenting to the act. See Strum v. State, 168 Ark. 1012, 272 S.W. 359. We can reject all cases cited by appellants relating to acts committed in private out of hand. No such act is involved here, in ......
-
Roath v. State
... ... Hudspeth v. State, 50 Ark ... 534, 9 S.W. 1; Vaughan v. State, 58 Ark ... 353, 24 S.W. 885; Scott v. State, 63 Ark ... 310, 38 S.W. 339; Cook v. State, 75 Ark ... 540, 87 S.W. 1176; Celender v. State, 86 ... Ark. 23, 109 S.W. 1024; Earnest v. State, ... 120 Ark. 148, 179 S.W. 174; Strum v. State, ... 168 Ark. 1012, 272 S.W. 359 ... It will ... be remembered that the question of an accomplice was not ... presented to the jury, but it is proper for us to consider ... this question and the nature of the evidence sought for its ... corroboration, for it goes ... ...
-
Hummel v. State
...Edmonson v. State, 51 Ark. 115, 10 S.W. 21; Melton v. State, 43 Ark. 367; Norris v. State, 168 Ark. 151, 269 S.W. 46. In Strum v. State, 168 Ark. 1012, 272 S.W. 359 (a sodomy case), the record showed conclusively that prosecuting witnesses (two boys) did consent to the act of sodomy; so it ......
-
Hummel v. State
...Edmonson v. State, 51 Ark. 115, 10 S.W. 21; Melton v. State, 43 Ark. 367; Norris v. State, 168 Ark. 151, 269 S.W. 46. In Strum v. State, 168 Ark. 1012, 272 S.W. 359 (a sodomy case), the record showed conclusively that the prosecuting witnesses (two boys) did consent to the act of sodomy; so......