State v. Maida
New York Court of General Session of the Peace
Anthony Maida was charged in the indictment for sodomy, alleged to have been committed by the use of the mouth, in the act of copulation. On motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the offense as charged did not constitute sodomy or the crime against nature.
1Opinion of the Court
Conrad, J.,
delivering the opinion of the court:. The indictment charges sodomy and alleges that defendant was guilty of the crime against nature by use of the mouth in the act of copulation.
The defendant is indicted under Section• 7, Chapter 153, *41Revised Code 1915, which says, “Whoever shall commit the crime against nature shall be deemed guilty of felony.” The crime against nature and sodomy seem to be synonymous, but neither is defined by our statute.
The early case of Rex v. Jacobs, Crown cases, 331, held that inserting the private parts in the mouth was not sodomy. Most of the text-writers…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . FennerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
3Cited by14 opinions
- Harris v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1969
- Koontz v. the PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
- State v. CyrSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1938
- Fisher v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1955
- State v. MilneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.