Title: State v. Mays

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

329 So. 2d 65 (1976) STATE of Mississippi v. Marvin MAYS. No. 48953. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 16, 1976. Rehearing Denied April 13, 1976. Tommy McWilliams, Asst. Dist. Atty., Drew, A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by John C. Underwood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellant. W.C. Trotter, III, Belzoni, for appellee. Before GILLESPIE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and WALKER, JJ. ROBERTSON, Justice: Marvin Mays was indicted by the grand jury in the Circuit Court of Sunflower County for the crime of sodomy. The circuit court sustained a motion to quash the indictment, finding in its order: The State appeals from the order quashing the indictment and discharging the defendant. The indictment reads: Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-29-59 (1972), titled "Unnatural intercourse", provides: Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-7-1 (1972), titled "Indictment may charge *66 offenses according to common law or statute", provides: This Court has equated the common law crime of sodomy with "the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind or with a beast," proscribed in Section 97-29-59. We have ruled that indictments describing or charging the crime "according to the common law or according to the statute" were valid and constitutional indictments. See Taurasi v. State, 233 Miss. 330, 102 So. 2d 120 (1958); and State v. Davis, 223 Miss. 862, 79 So. 2d 452 (1955). The indictment in the case at bar describes and charges the crime both according to the statute and according to the common law. In Rose, Warden, v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 96 S. Ct. 243, 46 L. Ed. 2d 185, (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the contention that a Tennessee statute proscribing "crimes against nature" was unconstitutionally vague. The Court said: The indictment and the statute, § 97-29-59 (implemented by § 99-7-1), clearly met all constitutional tests. The judgment of the trial court quashing the indictment and discharging the defendant, is reversed and this cause remanded to the circuit court for trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GILLESPIE, C.J., PATTERSON and INZER, P. JJ., and SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.