Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Harvey v. State

Harvey v. State

115 S.W. 1193, 55 Tex. Crim. 199, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 24
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 27, 1909·No. No. 4528.·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

RAMSEY, Judge.

The appellant appeals from a conviction in the court below, charged with sodomy.

The charge is too horrible to contemplate, and too revolting to discuss. We think the indictment does not charge an offense against the laws of this State. Almost this identical .question was discussed and decided in the ease of Lewis v. State, 35 S. W. Rep., 372. A similar transaction was held not to be sodomy under the statute in the case of Prindle v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 551. We think that some legislation should be enacted covering these unnatural crimes.

For the reason that no offense is charged in the indictment against the laws of this State, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Harvey v. State, 115 S.W. 1193, 55 Tex. Crim. 199, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 24 (Tex. 1909).

115 S.W. 1193 (Harvey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Baker v. Wade
553 F. Supp. 1121 (N.D. Texas, 1982)
Knight v. State
642 S.W.2d 180 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Pruett v. State
463 S.W.2d 191 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
State v. Dietz
343 P.2d 539 (Montana Supreme Court, 1959)
Slusser v. State
232 S.W.2d 727 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Barton v. State
53 S.E.2d 707 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Furstonburg v. State
190 S.W.2d 362 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Munoz v. State
281 S.W. 857 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)
State v. Johnson
137 P. 632 (Utah Supreme Court, 1913)
State v. Wellman
161 S.W. 795 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Kinnan v. State
125 N.W. 594 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1910)