Lewis v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Lewis v. State

35 S.W. 372, 36 Tex. Crim. 37, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 101

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 20, 1896

DocketNo. 851.

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 35 S.W. 372 (Lewis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. State, 35 S.W. 372, 36 Tex. Crim. 37, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 101 (Tex. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of sodomy, and given fifteen years in the penitentiary, and from the judgment and sentence of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal. There is no bill of exceptions in the record. The alleged sodomy was with a woman. The details are revolting, and not necessary to be stated. The contention of the appellant that the act could not be performed with a woman is without any foundation to support it, the statute and authorities on the subject being otherwise. The statute reads: “If any person shall commit with mankind * * * the abominable and detestable crime against nature.” Woman is included under the term “mankind.” See, Rev. Penal Code, Art. 364; 2 Bishop’s Crim. Law, § 1193. The copulation in the mouth in this instance was not sufficient, but the proof was unquestioned that the appellant copulated with a woman by penetrating her fundament or anus with his penis. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of sodomy, and given fifteen years in the penitentiary, and from the judgment and sentence of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal. There is no bill of exceptions in the record. The alleged sodomy was with a woman. The details are revolting, and not necessary to be stated. The contention of the appellant that the act could not be performed with a woman is without any foundation to support it, the statute and authorities on the subject being otherwise. The statute reads: “If any person shall commit with mankind * * * the abominable and detestable crime against nature.” Woman is included under the term “mankind.” See, Rev. Penal Code, Art. 364; 2 Bishop’s Crim. Law, § 1193. The copulation in the mouth in this instance was not sufficient, but the proof was unquestioned that the appellant copulated with a woman by penetrating her fundament or anus with his penis. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.W. 372, 36 Tex. Crim. 37, 1896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-state-texcrimapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack