Opinion ID: 3008595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: First-Degree Sodomy

Text: Hall claims the jury was improperly instructed that it could convict Hall of sodomy only if it believed that he, acting alone or in complicity, engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with the victim in this case. Hall bases his argument on the definition of deviate sexual intercourse provided in the instructions, which was consistent with the definition provided in KRS 510 .010(1) :  `Deviate sexual intercourse' means any act of sexual gratification involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another; or penetration of the anus of one person by a foreign object: manipulated by another person . hall asserts that there was no act of sexual gratification, and he contends that. act of sexual gratification modifies both parts of this definition. However, it is clear from the plain language of the statute that contrary to Hall's assertion, the two phrases are separated by the word and that the second phrase, penetration of the anus of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person, need not, be done for sexual gratification. The instruction was proper.