Commonwealth v. Delano

83 N.E. 406, 197 Mass. 166, 1908 Mass. LEXIS 685
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 11, 1908·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Loring, J.

The only argument put forward by the defendant is that although the act here complained of was an “unnatural and lascivious act with another person ” it was not an act of copulation and that for that reason on the authority of what was stated obiter in Commonwealth v. Dill, 160 Mass. 636, 537, it is an act not within R. L. c. 212, § 27.

It is plain that St. 1887, c. 436, now R. L. c. 212, § 27, was intended to make criminal any and all unnatural and lascivious [167] acts with another person. Copulation is the natural act of coition and is not within the statute. It is evident that the word “ copulation ” was not used accurately in the opinion in Commonwealth v. Dill, 160 Mass. 536, 537.

Verdict to stand.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Delano, 83 N.E. 406, 197 Mass. 166, 1908 Mass. LEXIS 685 (Mass. 1908).

83 N.E. 406 (Commonwealth v. Delano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Gallant
369 N.E.2d 707 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1977)
Commonwealth v. Marshall
155 N.E.2d 798 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Commonwealth v. Whitcomb
177 N.E. 821 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)