Stark v. State
James Stark v. State of Mississippi
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Calhoon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The indictment was drawn under code, § 1218, against the exposure of the person in a public place, etc. The statute requires the exhibition to be “willfully and lewdly” made. Thé indictment charges that it was ‘£ unlawfully and willfully ’ ’ made, omitting the word £ £ lewdly. ’ ’ If this may be left out, so may the wore) £ £ willfully, ” by the same process of reasoning, leaving the whole charge to depend on the word £ £ unlawfully.” We hold, therefore, that the indictment is void on its face. The statute does not use the word £ £ unlawfully. ’ ’ The pleader very properly did, but he failed to use a word essential to the description of the offense, so as to support the pleader’s conclusion that the act was unlawful. Cook v. State, 72 Miss., 517 ( 17 South., 228 ); Dee v. Same, 68 Miss., 601 ( 9 South., 356 ); Lewis v. Same, 49 Miss., 354 ; Harrington v. Same, 54 Miss., 490 ; Roberts v. Same, 55 Miss., 421 ; and the other cases cited in Brame & A. Dig., p. 305, secs. 93-99, and those in George’s Dig., p. 814, secs. 305-312. The exposure may be willful, because sometimes inescapably necessary, and yet not at all lewd ; and this is of the very essence of the offense, *399 and therefore must be charged. Hodnett v. State, 66 Miss., 27 ( 5 South., 518 ). For the same, and even stronger, reason, we think there was error in granting the only instruction asked for by the state. This charge tells the jury that, if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, (‘ that the defendant willfully and lewdly exposed” his person or did a specified act in a public place, etc., they should convict. So, if he did the particular act, whether he did it unlawfully, willfully, or lewdly, or not, according to this charge, he was guilty.
Even if defendant had been properly indicted and convicted under' proper instruction, the statute limits the judgment of imprisonment to twenty days, and the court was without power to sentence him for thirty days, as it did.
Reversed and remanded.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(overturning conviction under this section where indictment omitted the term "lewdly")
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.