Legal Opinion

State v. Putman

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided October 6, 1967No. 56PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Connell v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Norton v. ReeseNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Bennett v. AbramNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. LairSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
  2. State v. LindseyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. State v. LairSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
  4. State v. PutmanNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1967
  5. State v. TrejoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1972

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API