Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register
Register

Commonwealth v. Poindexter

Law Dictionary
CASE BRIEFS

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
AA
Font size

Criminal Law Keyed to LaFave

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 133 Ky. 720,118 S.W. 943,1909 Ky.

Brief Fact Summary. Appellees were charged with criminal sodomy, but appealed when they learned that their acts did not in fact constitute sodomy.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Kentucky’s Criminal Sodomy statute does not prohibit oral sex.


Facts. Appellees C.H. Poindexter and Frank Moore were charged with criminal sodomy. They entered a plea of guilty, admitting that they had engaged in what is modernly referred to as “oral sex.” After the jury returned a guilty verdict and imposed a punishment of 2 years in the penitentiary, Appellees entered a motion for a new trial. Their motion for a new trial was based on the fact that they had misapprehended that the acts charged in the indictment constituted the crime of sodomy. As they learned after trial, the acts did not constitute criminal sodomy. The Circuit Court ordered a new trial in which the Appellees demurred the indictment. The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the indictment. The Commonwealth timely appealed.

Issue. Did the Appellees’ actions (oral sex) constitute criminal sodomy?

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following