State v. Limon

Last updated

State of Kansas v. Matthew R. Limon
Court Supreme Court of Kansas
Full case name State v. Limon
DecidedOctober 21, 2005
Citations 280 Kan. 275; 122 P.3d 22
Case history
Prior actions 32 Kan. App. 2d 369; 83 P.3d 22 (2004)
Holding
A state law allowing for lesser punishment for statutory rape convictions if the partners were of different sexes than if they were of the same sex was found unconstitutional under both the federal and Kansas state constitutions
Court membership
Chief judge Kay McFarland
Case opinions
Majority Marla J. Luckert
Davis, Gernon took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

State v. Limon, 280 Kan. 275, 122 P.3d 22 (2005), [1] is a Kansas Supreme Court case in which a state law allowing for lesser punishment for statutory rape convictions if the partners were of different sexes than if they were of the same sex was found unconstitutional under both the federal and Kansas state constitutions. It was among the first cases to cite the United States Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas as precedent, months after the Virginia Supreme Court did similarly in Martin v. Ziherl .

Contents

Background

In February 2000, a week after his eighteenth birthday, Kansas resident Matthew R. Limon engaged in a voluntary act of oral sex with a 14-year-old boy. Both were residents of a home for the mentally disabled. [2] The difference in their ages at the time of the act was three years, one month and a number of days. Under the state's Romeo and Juliet law (K.S.A. § 21-3522), the penalties for statutory rape are less severe if the incident involves two teenagers. The Kansas statute specifically excluded same-sex sexual conduct. [3] Because of this exclusion, Limon was charged under K.S.A. § 21-3505(a)(2) with criminal sodomy. [4]

Limon's attorneys filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that K.S.A. § 21-3522 was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The motion was denied and Limon was convicted of criminal sodomy. He was sentenced to 17 years and two months in prison. Had the sexual encounter been between a male and female, the maximum sentence would have been 15 months. Limon was also required to register as a sex offender and to submit to five years of supervision upon release. [4]

Appeals

Limon appealed his case to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction citing Bowers v. Hardwick , 478 U.S. 186 (1986), a United States Supreme Court case which upheld sodomy laws as constitutional. [5] His appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court was also denied and Limon appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 2002. [4]

On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003) that a Texas state law forbidding consensual sex between two people of the same sex was unconstitutional. In doing so, the Court explicitly overruled Bowers, the basis for the decision by the Kansas Court of Appeals. [6] On June 27, 2003, in light of its decision in Lawrence, the Court granted Limon's petition for certiorari, vacated the decision of the Kansas Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in what is known as a GVR order. [7] [8] The Kansas Court of Appeals again upheld the conviction and sentence in January 2004, in a 2-1 ruling. [9] Since the Kansas Court of Appeals found Lawrence not to be controlling (because unlike Lawrence and its consenting adults, Limon's "case involved a 14-year-old developmentally disabled child"), even on remand from the Supreme Court, the case was once again appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, and this time, they accepted the case. The Kansas Supreme Court unanimously ruled on October 21, 2005, that the "Romeo and Juliet" statute violated the Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States Constitution and the Kansas constitution and struck the words "and are members of the opposite sex" from K.S.A. § 21-3522. [1] Limon was released from prison on November 3, 2005. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that U.S. state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

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.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2003.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2005.

<i>Martin v. Ziherl</i> 2005 Supreme Court of Virginia case

Martin v. Ziherl, 607 S.E.2d 367, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia holding that the Virginia criminal law against fornication was unconstitutional. The court's decision followed the 2003 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which established the constitutionally-protected right of adults to engage in private, consensual sex.

Kentucky v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487, was a 1992 Kentucky Supreme Court decision striking down the state's anti sodomy laws that criminalized sexual activity between two people of the same-sex, holding that this was a violation of both the equal protection of the laws and the right to privacy. The Kentucky case helped pave the way for many other states and eventually the United States Supreme Court to issue similar rulings.

<i>Powell v. State</i>

Powell v. State of Georgia, S98A0755, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E. 2d 18 (1998), was a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in the U.S. state of Georgia that overturned its law against sodomy within the state. The Court ruled that the Georgia Constitution granted a right to privacy, and that outlawing oral or anal sex between consenting adults was a violation of the state constitution, thus deeming it "unconstitutional".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kentucky Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Kentucky

The Kentucky Supreme Court is the state supreme court of the U.S. state of Kentucky. Prior to its creation by constitutional amendment in 1975, the Kentucky Court of Appeals was the only appellate court in Kentucky. The Kentucky Court of Appeals is now Kentucky's intermediate appellate court.

<i>Muth v. Frank</i>

Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the denial to an individual of a writ of habeas corpus for violation of Wisconsin's laws criminalizing incest was not unconstitutional. The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas invalidating anti-sodomy laws two years prior, which the Seventh Circuit rejected.

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.

A grant, vacate, remand (GVR) is a type of order issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court simultaneously grants a petition for certiorari, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings. An order of this sort is typically appropriate when there has been a change in legal circumstances subsequent to the lower court or agency's decision, such as a change in the law, a precedential ruling, or a confession of error; the Supreme Court simply sends the case back to the lower court to be reconsidered in light of the new law or the new precedent. GVR orders are designed to be efficient and thus are not full explications of the law, and have no precedential effect. GVR orders are usually not explained with lengthy opinions.

Hermesmann v. Seyer was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States, case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman. The case was brought in her name by the then Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

In common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sexual contact with minors under the age of consent, it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term statutory rape in the language of statutes. In statutory rape, overt force or threat is usually not present. Statutory rape laws presume coercion because a minor or mentally disabled adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ages of consent in the United States</span>

In the United States, each state and territory sets the age of consent either by statute or the common law applies, and there are several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators. Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal age of consent is between 16 and 18. In some places, civil and criminal laws within the same state conflict with each other.

<i>Baker v. Wade</i> U.S. court case on sodomy

Baker v. Wade 563 F.Supp 1121, rev'd 769 F.2nd 289 cert denied 478 US 1022 (1986) is a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the sodomy law of the state of Texas. Plaintiff Donald Baker contended that the law violated his rights to privacy and equal protection. After a victory at trial, an appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and in the wake of its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Kansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Kansas have federal protections, but many face some legal challenges on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kansas under the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy laws that only apply to same-sex sexual acts. The state has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations since 2020. Proposed bills restricting preferred gender identity on legal documents, bans on transgender people in women's sports, bathroom use restrictions, among other bills were vetoed numerous times by Democratic Governor Laura Kelly since 2021. However, many of Kelly's vetoes were overridden by the Republican supermajority in the Kansas legislature and became law.

Doe v. Commonwealth's Attorney of Richmond, 425 U.S. 901 (1976), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which gave summary affirmation of a lower court ruling which upheld the U.S. state of Virginia's ban on homosexual sodomy.

References

  1. 1 2 State v. Limon, 280Kan.275 (2005).
  2. ↑ Manning, Carl (November 19, 2005). "Matthew Limon returning to court on new charge". Lawrence Journal World . Retrieved June 16, 2018.
  3. ↑ K.S.A. § 21-3522 as passed by the Kansas Legislature reads "(a) Unlawful voluntary sexual relations is engaging in voluntary: (1) sexual intercourse; (2) sodomy; or (3) lewd fondling or touching with a child who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age and the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than four years of age older than the child and child and the offender are the only parties involved and are members of the opposite sex."
  4. 1 2 3 "Limon v. Kansas - Case Background". American Civil Liberties Union. September 8, 2005. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
  5. ↑ Bowers v. Hardwick , 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
  6. ↑ Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
  7. ↑ Limon v. Kansas , 539 U.S. 955(2003).
  8. ↑ Stout, David (June 27, 2003). "Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansasn". The New York Times . Archived from the original on August 22, 2019. Retrieved July 7, 2022.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  9. ↑ State v. Limon, 32Kan. App. 2d369 (2004).
  10. ↑ Bauer, Laura (November 4, 2005). "Defendant in gay sex case released from jail". The Kansas City Star. p. B1.

Further reading

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.