Opinion ID: 1708413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Insubstantial arguments

Text: The defendants urge other insubstantial reasons for the trial court's ruling which deserve only summary disposition. Defendants ask for recognition of a right to privacy insulating all private sexual acts of consenting adults. The right to privacy does not shield all private sexual acts from state regulation, however. The United States Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986), rejected a claimed constitutional right to engage in private acts of sodomy. Moreover, as in the overbreadth argument, defendants overlook the fact that the private conduct which they seek to protect will not likely be affected by the enforcement of the statutes against indiscrimate solicitations of sexual acts for compensation, which generally occur in public. Defendants' claim that the statutes are enforced discriminatorily and arbitrarily is an attack on the statute as applied, rather than a facial attack. The record is devoid of any evidence to support the claim of misapplication of the statute. Defendants argue that the statutes are unconstitutional because they fail to require that an accused have knowledge of the type of activity that is prohibited by law. Defendants are in error. Ignorance of the law is not a defense to any criminal prosecution. La.R.S. 14:17. Defendant Neal argues in his brief that the solicitation of crime against nature statute authorizes a penalty which is cruel, unusual, excessive and disproportionate in comparison with that authorized by the solicitation of prostitution statute. From the record before us, it does not appear that either defendant raised this argument below. Furthermore, we note that neither defendant has been sentenced or even convicted. Thus the argument is not properly before this court and will not be considered. The argument can be reasserted at a later time. Both defendants assert in brief that their rights to the protection of equal laws are being violated. Again, this argument will not be considered by this court for the same reasons that we deferred entertainment of defendants' excessive punishment claim. The judgment of the trial court declaring La.R.S. 14:82(b) and 14:89 A(2) unconstitutional is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DIXON, C.J., concurs. CALOGERO, J., concurs since State v. Lindsey, 310 So.2d 89 (La.1975) the principle issue in this case has been resolved in this court.