Court Opinion

ID: 9793556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:49:57.313413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:03.407248
License: Public Domain

KEETON, Justice
(dissenting).
In this case the majority opinion holds that a charge of sodomy, Sec. 18-6605, I.C., could include, under the circumstances pre*145sented, the crime of lewd and lascivious conduct.
The punishment to he imposed for a violation of the sodomy statute may be imprisonment for 5 years. The punishment to be imposed for a violation of Sec. 18-6607, I.C. (lewd and lascivious conduct) is life imprisonment.
The opinion further holds that “* * * any charge of the infamous crime against nature, committed on the person of such a minor, necessarily includes the crime of lewd and lascivious conduct.” The statement is obiter dictum and unnecessary to a decision in the case.
The opinion further says “* * * the prosecution has chosen to proceed against the defendant as a violator of § 18-6607, I. C. * * * under the fact, that is an included offense, * * This statement is likewise obiter dictum and in my opinion cannot be sustained by authority.
As pointed out in the dissenting opinion in State v. Petty (State v. Deane), 73 Idaho 136, 248 P.2d 218, a lesser offense, or included offense, is necessarily a lower degree of crime than the crime in which it is included.
Thus a charge of murder of the first degree necessarily includes the lower degree of crime of second degree, also manslaughter, the punishment for which in each case is less than the punishment for first-degree murder.
In this case the punishment for the supposed included offense is greater than the punishment prescribed for the commission of the offense in which it is claimed it is. included. I do not adhere to this reasoning.
I discussed this proposition in the case of State v. Petty, supra, so will not repeat here what I there said.
The statute under which the prosecution was attempted is unconstitutional.
I referred to the confusion that would arise in attempting to uphold this statute, Sec. 18-6607, I.C., in the case of State v. Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 245 P.2d 788. I now-think the confusion is already with us.
The judgment of the district court should be affirmed.