State v. Putman
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
■ WOOD, Judge.
By Count II of the information, defendant was accused of sodomy. The information was supplemented by a bill of particulars. The trial court sustained defendant’s motion to quash on the ground that the acts alleged did not constitute sodomy. The State appeals under § 21-2-1(5) (4), N.M.S.A. 1953.
The crime of sodomy is defined in § 40A-9-6, N.M.S.A. 1953. The portion of the statute applicable here reads:
“Sodomy consists of a person intentionally taking into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of any other person
The information charges:
“ * * * that said defendant did…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Connell v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1939
- Norton v. ReeseNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1966
- Bennett v. AbramNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. LairSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- State v. LindseyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- State v. LairSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- State v. PutmanNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1967
- State v. TrejoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.