Document: 423 U.S. 48 96 S.Ct. 243 46 L.Ed.2d 185 J. H. ROSE, Wardenv.Harold LOCKE. No. 74-1451. Nov. 17, 1975. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent was convicted in the Criminal Court for Knox County, Tenn., of having committed a "crime against nature" violation Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-707 (1955).1 The evidence showed that he had entered apartment female neighbor late at night on pretext using telephone. Once inside, produced butcher knife, forced his to partially disrobe, and compelled her submit twice performing cunnilingus upon her. He sentenced five seven years' imprisonment. Tennessee Appeals affirmed conviction, rejecting respondent's claim statute's proscription "crimes did not encompass cunnilingus, as well contention statute unconstitutionally vague. 501 S.W.2d 826 (1973). Supreme denied review. 2 renewed constitutional petition writ habeas corpus filed District Eastern Tennessee.2 petition, holding when considered light previous interpretations by courts Tennessee, "not vague nor impermissibly overbroad." 3 appealed Sixth Circuit, court sustained challenge. Believing statutory term could "in itself withstand charge unconstitutional vagueness" being unable find any opinion previously applying act held failed give respondent "fair warning." 514 F.2d 570 (1975). 4 It is settled fair-warning requirement embodied Due Process Clause prohibits States from an individual "criminally responsible conduct which reasonably understand be proscribed." United v. Harriss, 347 612, 617, 74 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954); see Wainwright Stone, 414 21, 22, 94 190, 38 179 But this prohibition excessive vagueness does invalidate every reviewing believes have been drafted with greater precision. Many statutes will some inherent vagueness, "(i)n most English words phrases there lurk uncertainties." Robinson States, 324 282, 286, 65 666, 668, 89 944 (1945). Even trained lawyers may it necessary consult legal dictionaries, treatises, judicial opinions before they say certainty what compel or forbid. Cf. Nash 229 373, 33 780, 57 1232 (1913); National Dairy Corp., 372 29, 83 594, 9 561 (1963). All requires law sufficient warning men themselves so avoid forbidden.3 5 Viewed standard, phrase no more than many other terms used describe criminal offenses common now codified state federal penal codes. has use among English-speaking people centuries, W. Blackstone, Commentaries *216, substantial number jurisdictions country continue utilize it. See Note, Crimes Against Nature, 16 J.Pub.L. 159, 162 n. 19 (1967). Anyone who cared do certainly determine particular acts crimes nature, can were ones never such. See, e. g., Comer State, 21 Ga.App. 306, S.E. 314 (1917); State Townsend, 145 Me. 384, 71 A.2d 517 (1950). 6 argued vice derives fact differ whether narrowly applied only those constituting common-law offense sodomy, broadly interpreted additional forms sexual aberration. We him contend broad interpretation vague; we think successfully so. upheld similar challenges. In Crawford, 478 (1972), Missouri rejected its crime-against-nature devoid definition unconstitutional, pointing out provision derived early embraced bestiality, buggery, fellatio, within terms. dismissed appeal judgment failing present question. Crawford Missouri, 409 811, 93 176, 34 66 (1972); Hicks Miranda, 422 332, 343-345, 95 2281, 2289, 45 223 And supra, Florida proscribing "the abominable detestable crime vague, despite recently changed mind about permissible scope. 7 Appeals, relying language apparently believed these cases turned construed their cover same defendants therein charged. although Stone demonstrated existence applications one set facts forecloses lack-of-fair-warning challenges subsequent prosecutions factually identical conduct, hold such prerequisite withstanding attack. If case would extremely difficult ever mount effective prosecution based broader two reasonable constructions newly enacted unapplied statutes, even though neighboring jurisdiction construction identically worded years. 8 seems argue instead because taken narrow view interpretation, determined approach take, making therefore impossible know if covered cunnilingus. assuming correctness argument indication might adopt, available here. simply mistaken law. As 1955 expressly repudiating "narrow restrictive offense." Fisher 197 Tenn. 277 340. four years later reiterated coverage intended 39-707. Emphasizing encompasses meaning, quoted Maine decision earlier cited approval effect " 'the brings all unnatural copulation mankind beast, including scope.' Sherrill 204 427, 429, 321 812 (1959), quoting Cyr, 135 513, 198 A. 743 (1938). statute, point equated own, either decision. supra. Thus, given sufficiently clear notice receive plausible interpretations, here arose. This also serves distinguish Bouie City Columbia, 378 347, 84 1697, 12 894 (1964), thought controlling. Bouie, unforeseeable enlargement precise face violated Clause. pointed process lull potential defendant into false sense security, giving reason suspect clearly outside scope written retroactively brought construction." U.S., 352, S.Ct., 1702. noted, make afforded Other already apply acts. court's pronouncements coverage, nothing indicate, otherwise, There possibility retroactive lawmaking 353-354, Accordingly, certiorari motion proceed forma pauperis are granted, reversed. 10 Judgment 11 So ordered. Mr. Justice BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL concurs, dissenting. 13 I dissent Court's summary reversal. limited per anum. American jurisdictions, however, expanded include "aberrations." Of significance case, accurately stated, "courts differed widely construing reach 'crimes nature' cunnilingus." 570, 571. 14 holds, "(o)ther (cunnilingus) . 39-707." Ante, 53. traditional test gives fair one's supplanted anything "to of" statute. stands head. startling change accompanied equally that, cannot heard 39-707, fell scope, favored favoring 15 Yet extraordinary distortions principle criminally criminal, perpetrated without plenary review affording parties opportunity brief issues orally. recall patent instance irresponsibility. For announces today, contrary our prior decisions, charged violating fails warning, peril indicated tendency construe pertinent broadly, like persuasion embrace made subject charge. comprehend how judicially otherwise can, explicit adoption charging render uninterpreted latter concrete vagueness. apart merits proposition, surely citizens entitled soundness required attempt conform drastically new standard. Today's flies line recent decisions struck down overbroad, overbreadth. "abusive language" Gooding Wilson, 405 518, 92 1103, 31 408 illustrative. Nor assertions event analysis. relies copulation-per-anum phrase. decided 1938, 743, where fellatio. cite 1950 decision, 517, Maine's 340 (1955). Four later, 1959, another fellatio again mention Cyr's applies 'all sodomy.' (1959). Despite significant failure solely strength general "equating" holds today "broad" 17 1974 bootstrap first time must obviously fail meaning. When 1938 "unnatural copulation," said Main suggested reached nature," anum, penetration essential element. reading should os understood category. State's language, drawn distinction. Riley Garrett, 219 Ga. 345, 133 S.E.2d 367 (1963); Tarrant, Ohio App. 199, 80 N.E.2d 509 (1948). adopted Cyr citizen developments through 1938. That subsequently irrelevant, "adopted" until us. Indeed, citing arguably but nebulous 18 Moreover, seriously question assumption "broad interpretation" rests supposed precedents: (1) dismissal want (2) curiam reliance plainly misplaced. appellant coercing mentally retarded perform appellant. not, implies, adopt appellant's case. Rather, noted original probably reaching legislatively amended express expand "with organs mouth," thereby "enlarg(ing) ." 314, 317 (Mo.1972). court, observing "court's becomes part 'as legislature,' ibid. (citations omitted), stated 60 since amendment, "adjudicated" "bestiality, cunnilingus," id., 318, "(a)t least (Missouri) specifically (against appellant) statute." Id., 319. legislative phrase, specific application appellant's, treated 20 STEWART correctly observes, involved very "judgment 192. reversal Appeals' finding explicitly "require(d) reversal" put 22-23, 192.1 No specter increasing caseload possibly justify today's disposition due enable forbidden great bulwarks scheme liberty. erosion reaches dangerous level certiorari, granted affirm oral argument. 22 STEWART, 23 but, Appeals. 24 piece 179, heavily relies. repeatedly ruled prohibited precisely found engaged. Here, contrast, Locke cryptic emphasizes "broadly," supported inference proscribed Stephens 489 542 (1972). 25 "been forbid identifiable 'interpretation (the court) puts definitely legislature .' 23, issue conduct. 26 out, could, should, prosecuted aggravated assault battery. correct under applied. "39-707. nature Penalty. punishable imprisonment penitentiary less (5) fifteen (15) years." sought relief theory uncorroborated testimony victim. ground significance," appear pursued threatens fundamental right freedom speech call special scrutiny, Smith Goguen, 415 566, 572-573, 1242, 1246, 39 605 (1974). Admittedly, notes, renders definite necessarily mean absence necessity deemed just construed, Court, precedent deciding construction, event, situation, namely them.

Category: 3