Court Opinion

ID: 9614609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:26:52.973365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:14.061791
License: Public Domain

BUSSEY, Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. This Court has long recognized that consent is not an element of the crime against nature. See, 21 O.S.1981, § 886; Canfield v. State, 506 P.2d 987 (Okl.Cr.1973). Slaughterback v. State, 594 P.2d 780 (Okl.Cr.1979). Clearly, *1111it is a legislative function and not a judicial function to amend statutes if a change is to be enacted.
Additionally, I dissent to the reversal of the maiming conviction. Since the victim lost her eye as a result of the attack, the appellant’s actions fall squarely within the provisions of 21 O.S.1981, § 751, and the trial court properly denied the appellant’s proferred instructions on simple and aggravated assault and battery. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the judgments and sentences should be affirmed.