State v. Whitmarsh

Last updated

State v. Whitmarsh
SouthDakota-StateSeal.svg
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
Full case nameState v. Whitmarsh
DecidedNovember 18, 1910
Case history
Prior historyJudgment for defendant (Beadle County Circuit Court 1909)
Subsequent historyNone
Holding
Fellatio classifies as a crime against nature by extension of the federal common law definition of sodomy.
Case opinions
MajorityMcCoy, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Rev. Pen. Code § 799, SD Pen. Code § 351

State v. Whitmarsh was a South Dakota Supreme Court case decided on November 18, 1910, which asked whether or not fellatio, or oral sex, should be classified as sodomy. The contemporary federal common law definition of sodomy did not include fellatio. The court ruled that fellatio was an "abominable and disgusting" crime against nature and outlawed it between any two persons, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation or age. The case set a precedent for other states' laws and remained in effect in South Dakota for the next 66 years, until all sodomy laws, including the "crime against nature" statute, were abolished by the South Dakota Legislature in 1976.

Contents

Background

Louis Whitmarsh, the appellant, was charged by the Beadle County Circuit Court for assault on a 6-year-old boy, whom he "willingly, unlawfully, and feloniously assaulted" with intent to force oral sex upon, under violation of South Dakota Penal Code § 351. [1] Lyman T. Boucher was the judge presiding over this case. On February 1, 1909, the court found Whitmarsh guilty and sentenced him to three years imprisonment in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. [2]

Whitmarsh submitted an appeal and requested a retrial, but he was denied and subsequently filed several complaints against the court. Whitmarsh argued that the state attorney planned to charge him with the crime of sodomy, rather than "assault with intent." He also complained that the evidence against him was "incompetent, immaterial, and not proper cross-examination," and that the court would not let one of his witnesses testify to a certain question. Finally, Whitmarsh complained of the length of his punishment, which would have illegally expired in winter, as forbidden by Rev. Penal Code § 799. The state subsequently dismissed all complaints on grounds including lack of evidence and misinterpretation by the appellant of the law. [2]

Whitmarsh was represented by C. A. Kelley and James Byrnes, while South Dakota was represented by Attorney General S. W. Clark and State Attorney O. S. Hagen. [2] The question brought before the court was whether or not South Dakota's "crimes against nature" statute included fellatio. [1]

Decision

The case was decided and the opinion filed on November 18, 1910. The decision was unanimous in favor of the state of South Dakota and upheld Whitmarsh's sentence. J. Whiting wrote the opinion for the court. [3]

Among the cases cited by the court were State v. Vicknair, which was settled in Louisiana. As in the Vicknair decision, the South Dakota Supreme Court questioned why "the use of the mouth should not have been considered as much against nature as though the act were committed per anum." [2] By extension, the state court considered fellatio an "unusual form" of sodomy, and compared it thusly:

What would we think of the reasoning of a court that should hold that the killing of a human being in some peculiar and practically unheard of manner was not murder simply because such killing was committed in an unusual way? It would certainly be as sensible as to say that sodomy is not sodomy when committed in an unusual was of committing sodomy. [2]

Similar cases cited and considered were Rex v. Jacobs, Pringle v. State, People v. Boyle, Kinnan v. State, Davis v. Brown, Estes v. Iowa, Ausman v. Veal, and Commonwealth v. Poindexter, which either upheld that only acts defined by common law could be considered sodomy or did not explicitly state which acts should be considered sodomy. The South Dakota Supreme Court, considering what they referred to as the "unusual" nature of their case, searched for language that did not include the word sodomy but found none that did not simply uphold previous definitions using different language. As such, the court had no established precedent for its ruling. Instead, the court cited an Illinois statute, applied in Honselman v. People, which included the phrase "crime against nature" instead of the word "sodomy." The language of this case separated the two terms and defined them as similar but not interchangeable; since acts constituting sodomy had already been defined, the court chose to apply the phrase "crime against nature" to "any beastial [ sic ] or unnatural copulation that can be conceived." [2]

The opinion closed with a quote from Herring v. State, a similar case tried in Georgia, which reflected the South Dakota Supreme Court's final decision:

After much reflection, we are satisfied that, if the baser form of the abominable and disgusting crime against nature—i.e., by the mouth—had prevailed in the days of the early law, the courts of England could well have held that the form of the offense was included in the current definition of the crime of sodomy. And no satisfactory reason occurs to us why the lesser form of this crime against nature should be covered by our statute, and the greater excluded, when both are committed in a like unnatural manner, and when either might well be spoken of and understood as being 'the abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians.' [2]

— Georgia Supreme Court, Herring v. State

Influence

Like Herring v. State, State v. Whitmarsh became one of the first U.S. court cases to challenge the common law definition of sodomy and to define an act as such that was not previously outlined in its common law definition, and to uphold a difference in meaning between sodomy and a crime against nature. [2] The state's opinion was published in detail in the North Western Reporter. [3]

The case ruling was subsequently quoted by the Indiana Supreme Court in Glover v. State, which argued whether or not an act could be considered sodomy or a crime against nature if not specified by common law; [4] and by the Nevada Supreme Court In Re Benites. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual sodomy. It was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), though the statute had already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy laws in the United States</span> Aspect of United States law

The United States has inherited sodomy laws which constitutionally outlawed a variety of sexual acts that are deemed to be illegal, illicit, unlawful, unnatural and/or immoral from the colonial-era based laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many sodomy-related statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Justice Brennan dissent famously argued that "The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity... An executed person has indeed 'lost the right to have rights."

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime. In Robinson, the Court struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics.

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case concerned with the scope of the Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Helm, who had written a check from a fictitious account and had reached his seventh nonviolent felony conviction since 1964, received a mandatory sentence, under South Dakota law at that time, to life in prison with no parole. Petitioner Mr. Solem was the warden of the South Dakota State Penitentiary at the time.

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

The crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent and are legally punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy and bestiality.

John Webb was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court (1986–1998). Prior to serving on North Carolina's highest court, Justice Webb had been a Superior Court (trial) judge and a judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that filled in an important gap in the federal criminal law of sentencing. The federal criminal code does not contain a definition of many crimes, including burglary, the crime at issue in this case. Yet sentencing enhancements applicable to federal crimes allow for the enhancement of a defendant's sentence if he has been convicted of prior felonies. The Court addressed in this case how "burglary" should be defined for purposes of such sentencing enhancements when the federal criminal code contained no definition of "burglary." The approach the Court adopted in this case has guided the lower federal courts in interpreting other provisions of the criminal code that also refer to generic crimes not otherwise defined in federal law.

Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Tennessee statute proscribing "crime against nature" was held not unconstitutionally vague as applied to cunnilingus, satisfying as it does the due process standard of giving sufficient warning that men may so conduct themselves as to avoid that which is forbidden. Viewed against that standard, the challenged statutory phrase is no vaguer than many other terms describing criminal offenses at common law, which are now codified in criminal codes. Moreover, the Tennessee Supreme Court by previously rejecting claims that the statute was to be narrowly applied has given sufficiently clear notice that it would be held applicable to acts such as those involved here when such a case as this arose.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy law</span> Laws criminalising certain sexual acts

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood and defined by many courts and jurisdictions to include any or all forms of sexual acts that are deemed to be "illegal", "illicit", "unlawful", "unnatural" and/or "immoral". Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, manual sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced to target against sexual activities between individuals of the opposite sex, and have mostly been used to target against sexual activities between individuals of the same sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Louisiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana as a result of the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

The Portland vice scandal refers to the discovery in November 1912 of a gay male subculture in the U.S. city of Portland, Oregon. Nearly 70 men were charged, and three were convicted by jury; the Oregon Supreme Court then reversed the convictions on legal technicalities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Indiana enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT people. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Indiana since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Baskin v. Bogan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in North Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of North Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in North Dakota, and same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples; same-sex marriage has been legal since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in South Dakota</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of South Dakota may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in South Dakota, and same-sex marriages have been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. State statutes do not address discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Nebraska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Nebraska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Nebraska, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. The state prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and a subsequent decision of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. In addition, the state's largest city, Omaha, has enacted protections in public accommodations.

<i>Franklin v. State</i> Florida Supreme Court case decriminalizing sodomy

Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21, was a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's sodomy law as being "unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants." The court retained the state's prohibition on sodomy by ruling that anal and oral sex could still be prosecuted under the lesser charge of "unnatural and lascivious" conduct, thus reducing the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.

The history of LGBT residents in South Dakota spans back to precolonial Native American times, but has become much more visible in the 21st century.

References

  1. 1 2 "State v. Whitmarsh". Case Briefs. Casebriefs LLC. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Horner, Henry R. (1912). "State v. Whitmarsh". Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota. Vol. 26. Pierre: State Publishing. pp. 426–433. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  3. 1 2 "State v. Whitmarsh". North Western Reporter. 128 (November 25, 1910–January 13, 1911). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company: 580–583. 1910. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  4. ↑ Rich, Burdett A.; Farnham, Henry P., eds. (1913). "Glover v. State". Lawyers' Reports Annotated (Book 45 ed.). Rochester, NY: Lawyers' Co-operative Publishing Company. pp. 473–475, 477. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
  5. ↑ Richards, John E. (1915). Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. Vol. 37. Carson City, NV: State Printing Office. pp. 148–149. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.