Joseph v. State
Court of Appeals of Alaska
1Concurrence
Judge MANNHEIMER,
concurring.
Joseph's petition for rehearing is premised on the assertion that cunnilingus and genital intercourse both require proof of physical penetration of the female genitals. But in Murray v. State, 770 P.2d 1131, 1138-39 (Alaska App.1989), this Court rejected the contention that cunnilingus required proof of genital penetration. Instead, we endorsed the view that cunnilingus encompasses "(alll sexual activity involving oral contact with the female genitals", regardless of whether that contact includes penetration of the genitals. Ibid.
This is the majority view in the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. LynchOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. LudlumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Horton v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1998
- Welch v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 2006
- State v. BaileyOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.