TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lewis v. State

Alex Lewis v. the State

Lewis v. State, 35 S.W. 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 20, 1896
Docket
No. 851.
Judges
Henderson
Citations
35 S.W. 37236 Tex. Crim. 371896 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 101
Headnotes
Sodomy With, a Woman. Woman is included in the term “mankind,” used in the Penal Code, Art. 364, defining sodomy, and copulation with a woman by penetrating her fundament or anus with the penis or male organ is sodomy.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of De Witt. Tried below before Hon. S. F. Grimes. This appeal is from a conviction for sodomy, the punishment being assessed at fifteen years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. No statement necessary.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Henderson

HENDERSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of sodomy, and given fifteen years in the penitentiary, and from the judgment and sentence of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal. There is no bill of exceptions in the record. The alleged sodomy was with a woman. The details are revolting, and not necessary to be stated. The contention of the appellant that the act could not be performed with a woman is without any foundation to support it, the statute and authorities on the subject being otherwise. The statute reads: “If any person shall commit with mankind * * * the abominable and detestable crime against nature.” Woman is included under the term “mankind.” See, Rev. Penal Code, Art. 364; 2 Bishop’s Crim. Law, § 1193.

The copulation in the mouth in this instance was not sufficient, but the proof was unquestioned that the appellant copulated with a woman by penetrating her fundament or anus with his penis. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1905: 11909: 11910: 11911: 11913: 11926: 21927: 11939: 11943: 11949: 11958: 11959: 11970: 11973: 11982: 119052026peak 1926 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pruett v. State463 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
  2. State v. Lair301 A.2d 748 (N.J. 1973)
  3. State v. Johnson137 P. 632 (Utah 1913)
  4. Barton v. State53 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
  5. Lefavour v. State1943 OK CR 106, 142 P.2d 132
  6. Munoz v. State281 S.W. 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Knight v. State642 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. App. 1982)
  2. State v. Lair301 A.2d 748 (N.J. 1973)
  3. Pruett v. State463 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
  4. State v. Dietz343 P.2d 539 (Mont. 1959)
  5. Territory of Hawaii v. Bell43 Haw. 23 (1958)
  6. Barton v. State53 S.E.2d 707 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list