Kimbro v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partParks, Presiding Judge
In appellant’s first assignment of error, he asserts that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a child under the age of sixteen (16) cannot consent to either anal or oral sodomy. I agree. Appellant was charged with committing several acts of forcible sodomy under 21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 888. The trial court properly instructed the jury that “force” is an essential element of such crimes. However, it is my opinion that the element of force was negated by the inclusion of the aforementioned consent instructions.
The word “force”, by its definition, necessarily encompasses a lack of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. HumphreyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1980
- Slaughterback v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1979