State v. Elliott
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
Defendant was convicted of sodomy, § 40A-9-6, and .burglary, § 40A-16-3, N.M. S.A.1953 (2nd Repl. Vol. 6, 1972). He appeals. We reverse.
A. The sodomy statute is unconstitutional.
In State v. Trejo, 83 N.M. 511, 494 P.2d 173 (Ct.App.1972) (Sutin, J., dissenting), and State v. Armstrong, 85 N.M. 234, 511 P.2d 560 (Ct.App.1973) (Sutin, J., dissenting), I stated my view that the sodomy statute, § 40A-9-6, is unconstitutional and void. Today, the majority of the Court so holds.
This statute reads: •
Sodomy consists of a person intentionally taking into his or her mouth or anus the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Palko v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. SantosSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1980
- State v. HelkerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
- State v. RuizNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
- State v. LewisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.