Mitchell v. State
This text of 95 S.W. 500 (Mitchell 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.
Opinion
The charge was sodomy. The court in his charge submitted as a predicate for conviction that one of the parties used the mouth of the other. This is criticised in motion for new trial as not being the law. The same question was discussed in Prindle v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 551, where it was held, that such fact did not constitute the crime of sodomy. See also Peo. v. Boyle, 116 Cal., 658, 48 Pac. Rep., 800; 1 Wharton's Crim. Law, sec. 579. McClain’s Crim. Law, sec. 1153; 25 Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 1145, and note 5, for authorities. Without further discussion of the question, we hold that the charge was not only error, but submitted a state of case upon which this crime cannot be predicated. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 S.W. 500, 49 Tex. Crim. 535, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-state-texcrimapp-1906.