Case Title: Cooper v. Commonwealth

Citation: 550 S.W.2d 478

Docket Number: 

State: kentucky

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Date: 1977-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
550 S.W.2d 478 (1977) Brent COOPER, Jr., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. Supreme Court of Kentucky. January 28, 1977. Dale B. Mitchell, Mitchell & Gillum, Somerset, for appellant. *479 Robert F. Stephens, Atty. Gen., James M. Ringo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant was convicted on the charges of sodomy in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree. Appellant contends that the court erred in submitting a sodomy instruction (KRS 510.070), and in refusing to submit an instruction on sexual misconduct (KRS 510.140) and in refusing to instruct on the meaning of lack of consent as defined in KRS 510.020. Appellant argues that the sodomy statute and the sexual misconduct statute have the same elements but different punishments, and therefore a conviction for sodomy would result in a violation of the equal protection amendment of the United States Constitution. More specifically, appellant says that if one uses forcible compulsion to commit deviate sexual intercourse he is guilty of sodomy because the statute expressly says so, and since KRS 510.020 lists forcible compulsion as being one way in which there might be lack of consent, one is also guilty of violating the sexual misconduct statute which speaks of "without the (victim's) consent." KRS 510.140 is as follows: The bare wording of this section at first blush makes it appear to include offenses embraced in other sections of Chapter 510. For example, as appellant argues, sodomy in the first degree (KRS 510.070) may be caused by forcible compulsion which is, according to KRS 510.020, a result of lack of consent. KRS 510.140 provides that sexual misconduct may be accomplished if there is lack of consent of the other person. To give meaning to KRS 510.140 a commentary accompanying KRS 510.140 was included which is in part as follows: The commentary was originally a part of the November 1971 final draft of the Kentucky Penal Code, and according to Kennedy v. Commonwealth, Ky., 544 S.W.2d 219 (decided September 17, 1976), it *480 is presumed that the legislation assigned to the commentary in the 1974 legislative adoption of the penal code the same meaning and effect attributed to the language by the 1971 commentary. And according to KRS 500.100, the commentary accompanying the code may be used as an aid in construing the provisions of the code. KRS 510.140 therefore, as interpreted by the commentary, is concerned with cases not specifically covered by other sections of Chapter 510, and appellant's argument that he was convicted in violation of the equal protection amendment is without merit. In the present case both appellant and the victim were over 21 years of age and neither was physically or mentally incapacitated. KRS 510.140 was simply not applicable and the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on the offense of sexual misconduct. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by not permitting appellant to introduce a witness who testified by way of avowal that the victim had made homosexual advances to him. There were only two contentions at the trial, namely, that appellant committed the acts of sodomy by compulsion, as testified to by the victim, and that appellant did not commit acts of sodomy by compulsion or any other means, as testified to by appellant. There was no relevancy to either contention therefore in the avowed testimony that the victim was a homosexual. We find no merit in other assignments of error advanced by appellant. The judgment is affirmed. All concur.