Opinion ID: 2166151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is penetration required in every factual scenario of first-degree statutory sodomy?

Text: The statute to which Soto pleaded guilty provides, A person commits the crime of statutory sodomy in the first degree if he has deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years old. Section 566.062, RSMo 2000. Deviate sexual intercourse is defined in section 566.010(1), RSMo 2000: Deviate sexual intercourse, any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the male or female sex organ or the anus by a finger, instrument or object done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person. Relying on State v. Pond, 131 S.W.3d 792 (Mo. banc 2004), State v. Fewell, 198 S.W.3d 691 (Mo.App.2006), and State v. Robinson, 26 S.W.3d 414 (Mo.App.2000), Soto insists that deviate sexual intercourse requires penetration. This is a misreading of the definition. Under the definition, there are two types of acts: (1) any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue or anus of another person (which might be labeled contact sodomy) and (2) a sexual act involving the penetration of the sex organ or anus by a finger, instrument or object (which might be labeled penetration sodomy). All of these acts require the same mens reathat they were done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person. [2] The factual basis for the plea in this case clearly supports a finding that the act involved the genitals of one person and the hand of another person. The crime did not involve a finger, instrument or object used to penetrate a person's sex organ. Under these circumstances, penetration was not an element of the offense to which Soto pleaded guilty.