Canfield v. State

I agree that defendant in this case, having admitted the act of “sodomy,” should be required to answer for his offense; but I dissent to the holding that 21 O.S.1971, § 886 is constitutional. I also dissent to the punishment imposed, which I consider to be patently excessive under the facts of this case.

As I view 21 O.S.1971, § 886, it is unconstitutionally vague as its meaning is not ascertainable from the language of the statute. The prohibited conduct is not clearly expressed so that the ordinary person of common intelligence can determine exactly what he may, or may not do.

It is…