Opinion · Melaw Maine
STATE OF MAINE v. CYR, 135 Me. 513 (1938)
STATE OF Me. v. AMEDEE CYR., 198 A. 743 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.York County. 1938)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Melaw Maine
- Jurisdiction
- Melaw
- Date
- 1938-04-27
- Topic
- general
STATE OF MAINE v. CYR, 135 Me. 513 (1938) 198 A. 743 STATE OF MAINE vs. AMEDEE CYR.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.York County. Decided April 27, 1938. The respondent was tried on an indictment charging him with the crime against nature by committing sodomy with a certain female person, and he was convicted.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE OF MAINE v. CYR, 135 Me. 513 (1938). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
STATE OF MAINE v. CYR,135 Me. 513(1938)
198 A. 743
STATE OF MAINEvs.AMEDEE CYR.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
York County.
Decided April 27, 1938.
Since this state was first established, the offense laid in the indictment has been prohibited by statute. The present law as stated in R. S., Chap. 135, Sec. 3 reads:
"Whoever commits the crime against nature, with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year, nor more than ten years."Page 514The statute gives no definition of the crime but with due regard to the sentiments of decent humanity treats it as one not fit to be named, leaving the record undefiled by the details of different acts which may constitute the perversion. The generality of the prohibition brings all unnatural copulation with mankind or a beast, including sodomy, within its scope.
The thesis of counsel for the respondent on the brief is that the offense here proved was not sodomy at common law and can not be deemed the crime against nature under the statute. This contention is not supported by reason or a convincing weight of authority. In the early case ofRexv.Jacobs,Russ. R. C. C. 331, the judges held, but without stating reasons therefor, that fellatio was not sodomy, and controlled by the doctrine ofstare decisis,thisipse dixithas been followed in this country by text-writers and by the courts in some states, and statutes deemed declaratory of the common law have been construed accordingly.Peoplev.Boyle,116 Cal. 658, 48 P. 800;Koontzv.People,82 Col., 589,263 P. 19;Commonwealthv.Poindexter,133 Ky. 720, 118 S.W. 943;Kinnanv.State,86 Neb. 234, 125 N.W. 594;Mitchellv.State,49 Tex.Crim. 535,95 S.W. 500; 3 Russ. Crim. (6th Ed.) 250; 2 Bishop's New Crim. Law, Sec. 1194.
By the weight of recent authority apparently supported by better reasoning, sodomy as used in connection with statutes prohibiting the crime against nature is interpreted in its broad sense and held to include all acts of unnatural carnal copulation with mankind or beast. We shall not cumber our reports with a recital of the rulings or reasons given therefor. We are in accord with the results reached in the following authorities.Statev.Maida,6 Boyce (Del.), 40, 96 A. 207;Herringv.State,119 Ga. 709, 46 S.E. 876;Gloverv.State,179 Ind. 459, 101 N.E. 629;Kansasv.Hurlbert,118 Kan. 362, 234 P. 945;Statev.Guerin,51 Mont. 251, 152 P. 747;Statev.Start,65 Ore., 178, 132 P. 512;In re Benites,37 Nev. 145, 140 P. 436;Statev.Fenner,166 N.C. 248,80 S.E. 970;Statev.Whitmarsh,26 S.D. 426, 128 N.W. 580; 8 R. C. L., Sec. 365; 55 Corpus Juris 788. Exception overruled. Judgment for the State.