Case ID: tex-crim_55/html/0199-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RAMSEY, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur Harvey v. The State.
    No. 4528.
    Decided January 27, 1909.
    Sodomy—Indictment.
    See opinion for indictment held insufficient to sustain a conviction for sodomy. See court’s suggestion for additional legislation.
    Appeal from the District Court of Hill. Tried below before the Hon. W. C. Wear.
    Appeal from a conviction of sodomy; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    Leaving out the formal parts of the indictment, the same alleged that the defendant did unlawfully, wickedly, diabolically, and against the order of nature, have a venereal affair with .............. a woman, and did carnally lmow the said .......... in the vagina of her the said ............ by then and there casting her the said ........ in her vagina with the mouth of him the said ........ and thereby and therewith penetrating the vagina of her the said ........ and did then and there commit and perpetrate against the order of nature the abominable and detestable crime of sodomy, against the peace and dignity of the State.
    Ivy, Hill & Greenwood, for appellant.
    Cited cases in the opinion.
    
      F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, and A. M. Frazier, County Attorney, and V. L. Shurtleff, Assistant County Attorney, for the State.
    [Rehearing denied, February 10, 1909.—Reporter.]
    Honselman v. People, 48 N. E. Rep., 304; Allsman v. Veal, 10 Ind., 335
   RAMSEY, Judge.

The appellant appeals from a conviction in the court below, charged with sodomy.

The charge is too horrible to contemplate, and too revolting to discuss. We think the indictment does not charge an offense against the laws of this State. Almost this identical .question was discussed and decided in the ease of Lewis v. State, 35 S. W. Rep., 372. A similar transaction was held not to be sodomy under the statute in the case of Prindle v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 551. We think that some legislation should be enacted covering these unnatural crimes.

For the reason that no offense is charged in the indictment against the laws of this State, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Dismissed.