Court Opinion

ID: 9794928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:14:22.394659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:28.134390
License: Public Domain

SPIESS, Judge, Court of Appeals (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I am unable to concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. As I read the record and the briefs only two questions are submitted and argued by the parties. First, whether the Act, § 40A-9-6, N.M. S.A. 1953, relates only to the male sexual organ. Second, whether the act specified in the bill of particulars charged sodomy as such crime is defined by § 40A-9-6, supra. ‘ I have no difficulty in agreeing with, the majority that the statute includes both' male and female sexual organs. It appears to me the majority take the position that in sustaining the motion to quash the trial court erroneously limited' consideration to the allegations contained in the bill of particulars and consideration should have likewise been given to the charge in the information to the end that if either instrument contains a specification of acts sufficient to charge the crime the motion should have been denied. This proposition was neither suggested, argued, or submitted by the parties as I read the briefs. To my mind the parties and the trial court treated the acts alleged in the bill as the particular acts upon which the prosecution was based and as superseding those alleged in the information. Consequently, for the purpose of decision in this case I feel we should so treat these pleadings. I take the position that as a general rule this court should confine its decision to the errors asserted and issues raised by the parties. It, of course, follows that through adherence to this rule the right of parties to argue questions upon which a decision is based will not be denied. As I read the language of the statute, § 40A-9-6, supra, together with the acts specified in the bill of particulars it appears obvious to me that if the defendant did commit the act so specified the crime of sodomy t as the same is defined by the statute was not committed. For the reasons stated I would affirm the order of the trial court.