Case Name: STATE v. START
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-05-20
Citations: 65 Or. 178
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. START.
Judges: Mr. Justice Eakin concurs in this dissent.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 178–197

Head Matter:
Argued April 15,
decided May 20, 1913.
STATE v. START.
(132 Pac. 512.)
Sodomy — Elements,
1. Under Section 1539, It. O. L., providing that “proof of .actual penetration into the body” is sufficient to establish the crime against nature, penetration into the mouth is sufficient to constitute the crime, under Section 2099, L. O. L., providing a penalty for the offense.
Criminal Law — Evidence—Accomplice.
2. Where a witness was present in the room where a crime against nature was committed, and made no attempt to interfere, and there were circumstances in dieating that he was guarding against interference, it was a question for the jury whether he was aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime so as to be an accomplice, as defined by Sections 1458, 2370, L. O. L., whose testimony must be corroborated as required by Section 1540, L. O. L.
[As to whether it is for the court or the jury to determine if one was an accomplice or not, see note in 98 Am. St. Rep. 161.]
Criminal Law — Parties to Offense — “Abet.”
3. To “abet” is to countenance, assist, give aid. The word “abet” . includes knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator and counsel and encouragement in the crime.
[As to accomplices in cases of sodomy, see note in 138 Am. St. Rep. 285.]
Criminal Law — Evidence—Other Offenses — Sexual Crimes.
4. In a prosecution for the crime against nature, evidence that the defendant has committed the same offense in the same way with other persons than the one named in the indictment is not admissible under the exception to the rule excluding testimony of other crimes, which permits such testimony, in cases of illicit sexual intercourse, to prove an inclination to commit the act, since that exception is limited to proof of similar crimes between the same parties.
[As to evidence of other offenses to show intent, see note in 105 Am. St. Rep. 991.]
From Multnomah.: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge.
The defendant, Harry A. Start, was convicted of the crime against nature and from the judgment and sentence imposed he appeals.
Reversed.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. Sam M. Johnson and Mr. Wilson T. Hume, with an oral argument by Mr. Hume.
For the state there was a brief over the names of Mr. Walter H. Evans, Distinct Attorney, Mr. Frank T. Collier and Mr. Robert F. Maguire, with oral arguments by Mr. Collier and Mr. Maguire.

Opinion:
' Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.