OK, Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that a perp who admitted forcing his pecker in the mouth of an incredibly intoxicated (and or possibly unconscious) victim, could not be prosecuted under the State's forcible oral sodomy statute, because the legislature did not expressly provide for it.
Their reasoning was that since the Legislature did address it under the state's rape statutes, then clearly they did not intend it to apply to instances of sodomy.
This, despite the fact that the statute clearly reads as follows:
OUJI-CR 4-128: "No person may be convicted of forcible oral sodomy unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, penetration;
Second, of the mouth/vagina of the defendant/victim;
Third, by the mouth/penis of the defendant/victim;
[Fourth, committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent]."
I'm having a really hard time understanding their reasoning as clearly a person who is completely inebriated or unconscious has an "unsoundness of mind" and legally unable to give consent.
So basically, you get drunk and/or pass out from any reason, then your mouth is fair game for anyone who may want to stick their penis according to this incredibly stupid opinion.
http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/04/23...esnt-apply-to-cases-with-unconscious-victims/
Their reasoning was that since the Legislature did address it under the state's rape statutes, then clearly they did not intend it to apply to instances of sodomy.
This, despite the fact that the statute clearly reads as follows:
OUJI-CR 4-128: "No person may be convicted of forcible oral sodomy unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
First, penetration;
Second, of the mouth/vagina of the defendant/victim;
Third, by the mouth/penis of the defendant/victim;
[Fourth, committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent]."
I'm having a really hard time understanding their reasoning as clearly a person who is completely inebriated or unconscious has an "unsoundness of mind" and legally unable to give consent.
So basically, you get drunk and/or pass out from any reason, then your mouth is fair game for anyone who may want to stick their penis according to this incredibly stupid opinion.
http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/04/23...esnt-apply-to-cases-with-unconscious-victims/