{ "id": 5332577, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador TREJO, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Trejo", "decision_date": "1972-02-04", "docket_number": "No. 748", "first_page": "511", "last_page": "516", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "83 N.M. 511" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "494 P.2d 173" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "82 N.M. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5330983 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5358846 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5359156 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5359682 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "2" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5335988 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5341957 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 S.E.2d 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ga.App. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga. App.", "case_ids": [ 1535307 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/75/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N.W. 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Wis. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8692681 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/194/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Nev. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Nev.", "case_ids": [ 535715 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nev/50/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.W. 717", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Mo. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 924886 ], "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/137/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 F. Supp. 217", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 4242750 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/119/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 Kan. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 22813 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/177/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5361793 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5333873, 5334938 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0287-01", "/nm/82/0287-02" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 782", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5330414 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0782-01" ] }, { "cite": "330 U.S. 855", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 353639, 354024, 353648, 354002, 353778, 354229, 353846, 353692, 354140, 353725 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/330/0855-08", "/us/330/0855-06", "/us/330/0855-09", "/us/330/0855-05", "/us/330/0855-07", "/us/330/0855-01", "/us/330/0855-10", "/us/330/0855-03", "/us/330/0855-04", "/us/330/0855-02" ] }, { "cite": "1965 Wash.U.L.Q. 220", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Wash. U. L.Q.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "30 Md.L.Rev. 91", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Md. L. Rev.", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "2 Pac.L.J. 206", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Pac. L.J.", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "14 Wayne L.Rev. 934", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Wayne L. Rev.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "23 U.Miami L.Rev. 231", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "U. Miami L. Rev.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "57 Ky.L.J. 591", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Ky. L.J.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "49 Tex.L.Rev. 400", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Tex. L. Rev.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Jan.1971" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "40 U.Colo.L. Rev. 222", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "U. Colo. L. Rev.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "32 N.C.L.Rev-. 312", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "12 U.Fla.L.Rev. 83", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "U. Fla. L. Rev.", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "13 S.D.L.Rev. 384", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "S.D. L. Rev.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "40 U.Colo.L.Rev. 199", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "U. Colo. L. Rev.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "234 F.Supp. 333", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1478238 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/234/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 N.E. 304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "168 Ill. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3187705 ], "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/168/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 N.M. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2713632 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/62/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5324261 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5335786 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5355298 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N.M. 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1579470 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/52/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 P.2d 558", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 10504915 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/p2d/283/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 L.Ed. 1297", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "67 S.Ct. 962", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "330 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 353633 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/330/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 N.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "268 N.E.2d 84", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "49 Texas L.Rev. 400", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Tex. L. Rev.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Jan.1971" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "28 L.Ed.2d 526", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "91 S.Ct. 1221", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1222" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "401 U.S. 989", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11759336, 11759499, 11759239 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/401/0989-02", "/us/401/0989-03", "/us/401/0989-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 F.Supp. 729", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 8482962 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/308/0729-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 F.2d 873", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2153756 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/394/0873-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 U.S. 479", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6172057 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/381/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "457 P.2d 638", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 10568502 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/p2d/457/0638-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 N.M. 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8841201 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/57/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5330722 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0428-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1136, "char_count": 17491, "ocr_confidence": 0.68, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.282792321976941e-07, "percentile": 0.7853621967921682 }, "sha256": "bf2a85c2d1656c89593e0a376d7c2bea37f12d913a6bae4d793ba1a44e5e537c", "simhash": "1:2cbc7b4922cf5af2", "word_count": 2840 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY, J., concurs.", "SUTIN, J., dissenting." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador TREJO, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of attempting to commit a felony. Section 40A-28-1, N. M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6). The felony was sodomy. Section 40A-9-6, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6). His appeal asserts: (1) a lack of substantial evidence to sustain the conviction and (2) a denial of effective assistance of counsel. This case involves a forcible attack upon a minor.\nSubstantial evidence.\nIn determining whether there was substantial evidence to support the verdict we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and indulging all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. State v. Betsellie, 82 N.M. 782, 487 P.2d 484 (1971); State v. Sedillo, 82 N.M. 287, 480 P.2d 401 (Ct.App.1971).\nApplying this rule, the evidence is as follows. On August 22, 1969, the complaining witness, sixteen year old Ronald Hernandez, was at a drive-in movie near Central, New Mexico with some friends. Pie left their car and went to the refreshment stand where he met the defendant. Ronald was acquainted with the defendant as the defendant was married to Ronald\u2019s cousin. Defendant agreed to take Ronald to Silver City where Ronald\u2019s grandmother lived.\nAfter getting into defendant\u2019s car, the defendant offered Ronald a dollar if Ronald would \u201c * * * let him screw me.\u201d When Ronald refused the defendant said he was \u201c * * * going to screw me [Ronald] or else.\u201d Defendant then grabbed Ronald, held him, covered his mouth and drove out of the movie onto a back road and stopped. Defendant then threw Ronald into the back seat and punched and slapped Ronald \u201creal hard\u201d until Ronald passed out. \u201c * * * [W]hen I [Ronald] came to I was partly naked and I was struggling and my trousers were already off and he took everything off and he begin [sic] to kick me * * During the struggle defendant was on top of Ronald with his arms around him. During the course of these events the fly on defendant\u2019s pants was open.\nShortly thereafter Ronald escaped, and ran naked, to a nearby house.\nThe owner of the house testified that Ronald was nude except for a pair of socks; that he was \u201c * * * hysterical, crying, terrified * * *; \u201d that he had a \u201c * * * big bruise on the [sic] side of his face * * * bruise marks on his throat and he was * * * spitting a little bit of blood from his teeth. * * * \u201d Other witnesses gave similar descriptions of Ronald\u2019s appearance that night.\nThe defendant was apprehended shortly thereafter on the road Ronald indicated he had taken. Ronald\u2019s clothes were found by the side of the road approximately one-half mile from where the attack occurred.\nAn attempt to commit a felony is defined as consisting \u201c * * * of an overt act in furtherance of and with intent to commit a felony and tending but 'failing to effect its commission.\u201d Section 40A-28-1, supra. The overt act must be more than preparation; it must be in part execution of the intent to commit the crime. However, slight acts in furtherance of that intent will constitute an attempt. State v. Lopez, 81 N.M. 107, 464 P.2d 23 (Ct.App. 1969); see also State v. Bereman, 177 Kan. 141, 276 P.2d 364 (1954).\nWe- found no New Mexico decisions which consider what acts are sufficient to constitute attempted sodomy. Generally, however, see United States v. Kelly, 119 F. Supp. 217 (D.C.1954); State v. Smith, 137 Mo. 25, 38 S.W. 717 (1897); State v. Verganadis, 50 Nev. 1, 248 P. 900 (1926); Garrad v. State, 194 Wis. 391, 216 N.W. 496 (1927).\nIn Anderson v. State, 75 Ga.App. 643, 44 S.E.2d 178 (1947), the defendant\u2019s conviction for attempted sodomy was upheld on evidence that the defendant had enticed the prosecutrix into his car by promising to take her home. Defendant then drove out onto a deserted road and told the prosecutrix to \u201ctake his privates in [her] mouth.\u201d The prosecutrix refused and defendant took her from the car and beat her until she passed out. The court stated:\n\u201c* * * the jury were authorized to find that the defendant failed in the perpetration of the commission of the crime of sodomy because the prosecutrix refused to take his private parts in her mouth when ordered by him so to do, and that the acts of the defendant in taking the prosecutrix out of the car and beating her were acts done in pursuance of his intent to commit sodomy, and directly tending to the commission of the crime.\" [Emphasis added.]\nIn State v. LeMarr, 83 N.M. 18, 487 P. 2d 1088 (1971), the defendant was convicted of being an aider and abettor to an attempted rape. The evidence of the attempted rape was that the principal had ripped off the victim\u2019s shirt and had attempted to remove her pants.\nThe acts of the defendant herein constituted an active effort to consummate the crime and were more than mere preparation. In addition, defendant\u2019s announced intention to \u201cscrew\u201d Ronald, and his activities following that announcement, are evidence that defendant intended to commit sodomy. See State v. Nelson, 83 N.M. 269, 490 P.2d 1242 (Ct.App.1971). There is substantial evidence to sustain the conviction.\nEffective assistance of counsel.\nDefendant contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel. All of his claims go to trial tactics and strategy. Even if the tactics could be considered bad, or the strategy considered improvident (which we do not hold), they would not amount to a denial of effective assistance of counsel. State v. Ramirez, 81 N.M. 150, 464 P.2d 569 (Ct.App.1970). A conviction is not to be reversed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel unless the proceedings leading to his conviction amount to a sham or farce or a mockery of justice. State v. Tapia, 80 N.M. 477, 457 P.2d 996 (Ct.App.1969). That is not the situation in this case.\nDefendant\u2019s specific claims, and the decisions adverse to those claims are: (1) failure to call defendant as a witness \u2014 Barela v. State, 81 N.M. 433, 467 P.2d 1005 (Ct.App.1970); State v. Ramirez, supra; (2) failure to object to certain instructions and a failure to request other instructions\u2014 State v. Samora, 82 N.M. 252, 479 P.2d 532 (Ct.App.1970); and (3) asserted deficiencies in counsel\u2019s cross-examination \u2014 Barela v. State, supra.\nThe judgment and sentence are affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY, J., concurs.\nSUTIN, J., dissenting.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge." }, { "text": "SUTIN, Judge\n(dissenting).\nI dissent. The sodomy statute, \u00a7 40A-9-6, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6), is unconstitutional and void because it regulates private sexual relations between two consenting adults, including husband and wife, both of which adults may be principals. \u201cForce is not an element of the crime.\u201d Washington v. Rodriguez, 82 N.M. 428, 483 P.2d 309 (Ct.App.1971).\nThe Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute, 1962, \u00a7 213.2 suggests a proper sodomy statute. Thus far it has been adopted by the States of Connecticut (Conn.Gen.Stat. \u00a7 53a-65 et seq., particularly \u00a7\u00a7 53a-75, 53a-76, 53a-77 [1958 Rev. 1969 Supp.], as amended, 1971 Conn.Public Acts, P.A. 871, \u00a7\u00a7 19, 127, 128), Idaho (Idaho Session Laws 1971, ch. 143, \u00a7 1, ch. 9, \u00a7 18-901 et seq.), Colorado (Session Laws of Colo.1971, ch. 121, \u00a7\u00a7 40-3-403 through 40-3-406, 40-3-410, effective July 1, 1972), and Oregon (Oregon Laws 1971, ch. 743, Art. 13, \u00a7\u00a7 104-120). It was adopted partially by the State of New York (Penal Code, McKinney\u2019s Consol. Laws, c. 40, \u00a7 130.00 et seq.), and Illinois (Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, \u00a7 11-1 et seq. [1967 Comp.]). Minnesota has amended its sodomy statutes to provide a lesser penalty for consensual acts. See Minn.Stat. 1969 Comp. \u00a7 609.293. The Model Penal Code provision is being considered by other states drafting criminal codes. A sodomy statute for New Mexico has been suggested in 8 Natural Resources J. 531 at 540.\nTrejo would be guilty under either sugT gested statute. The Model Penal Code prohibits deviant sexual intercourse only (1) when that act is accomplished through force; (2) when it involves an adult coiv rupting a minor; or (3) when the act is accompanied by a public offense. None of these elements appear in the New Mexico sodomy statute.\nIn the last ten years many law review articles and some books have been written unanimously condemning the present statute and its antecedents. Only twenty articles have been reviewed and are set forth as an Appendix. Professor Walter Barnett of the University of New Mexico Law School is now preparing drafts of a book to be entitled \u201cSodomy and the Constitution\u201d which covers this subject matter.\nThe present statute, suggested by the New Mexico Supreme Court in 1953, comes from Manual for Courts-Martial, U.S. Army, 1959. Bennett v. Abram, 57 N.M. 28, 253 P.2d 316 (1953).\nThe New Mexico sodomy statute reads as follows:\nSodomy consists of a person intentionally taking into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of any other person or animal or intentionally placing his or her sexual organ in the mouth or anus of any other person or animal, or coitus with an animal. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime of sodomy. Both parties may be principals.\nWhoever commits sodomy is guilty of a third degree felony.\nA good treatise on the subject of sodomy can be found in Harris v. State, 457 P.2d 638 (Alaska 1969).\nThe New Mexico statute is unconstitutional for the following reasons:\n1. It invades the right of privacy which is a right unspecified in the federal Constitution but it is a right \u201cwithin the penumbra of specific guaranties of the Bill of Rights\u201d including the IX Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); Cotner v. Henry, 394 F.2d 873 (7th Cir. 1968); Buchanan v. Batchelor, 308 F.Supp. 729 (D.C.Texas 1970), vacated and remanded for reconsideration of the jurisdiction of the U. S. District Court to grant equitable relief, Wade v. Buchanan, 401 U.S. 989, 91 S.Ct. 1221, 1222, 28 L.Ed.2d 526. See 49 Texas L.Rev. 400 (Jan.1971); the dissents in Dixon v. State, Ind., 268 N.E.2d 84 (1971); Miller v. State, Ind., 268 N.E.2d 299 (1971).\n2. The sodomy statute violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\u201d This means at least that neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church, nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947), reh. den. 330 U.S. 855, 67 S.Ct. 962, 91 L.Ed. 1297 (1947).\n' The New Mexico sodomy statute reflects a Judeo-Christian principle with origins in Genesis 19:5-8, 24 \u2014 26; Deuteronomy 23:17; Leviticus 18:22-23, 20-16. Sodomy is deemed sinful and wrongful as a matter of theology. The prohibition is religious in origin and no secular justification exists for enforcement of this religious principle beyond the areas set forth in the Model Penal Code. The legislature would not have the power to make abstinence a felony because it is a religious doctrine. Contraception is constitutional. Griswold v. Connecticut, supra.\nNeither the legislature nor the courts have the power to impose with ecclesiastical fury religious principles upon ordinary, innocent adults. For example, in Berryman v. State, 283 P.2d 558, 563 (Okl.Cr.1955), the court said the statute is not explicit because \u201cthe very alleged sexual behavior is such as should not be described among Christians.\u201d [Emphasis added.]\nFor decades, this subject has been considered \u201crevolting\u201d and \u201cdisgusting\u201d and not subject to discussion in court opinions because of its religious nature. Sodomy does not become a criminal act until the statute inserts elements which make human conduct a crime as set forth in the Model Penal Code.\nThe sodomy statute is unconstitutional and void because it is vague, overbroad, uncertain, and is an unreasonable exercise of the police power of the state. See State v. Prince, 52 N.M. 15, 189 P.2d 993 (1948); State v. Dennis, 80 N.M. 262, 454 P.2d 276 (Ct.App.1969); State v. Sanchez, 82 N.M. 585, 484 P.2d 1295 (Ct.App.1971), dissenting opinion; State v. Putman, 78 N.M. 552, 434 P.2d 77 (Ct.App.1967).\nIn State v. Putman, supra, a dissenting opinion established that three appellate judges could not agree on whether the defendant\u2019s conduct was covered by the sodomy statute. If this uncertainty exists, a penal statute is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because it deprives a person of due process. State v. Prince, supra.\nA good definition of public policy was adopted in Barwin v. Reidy, 62 N.M. 183, 307 P.2d 175 (1957). It is \u201cuncertain and fluctuating, varying, with the changing economic needs, social customs, and moral aspirations of a people.\u201d Appellate courts should not declare public policy without \u201c \u2018the clearest reasons and most pressing necessity.\u2019 \u201d\nA review of books and articles disclose many sound reasons which declare the present statute contrary to public policy. Public abhorrence of sexual deviation and private morals are not properly within the domain of the criminal law. Judge Learned Hand once wrote \u201cSodomy is a matter of morals * * * not something for which people should be put in prison.\u201d These deviations are widely practiced by married couples and encouraged by modern authorities on marriage. Authors of medical, psychological and sociological books, as well as members of the medical profession, are all placed in the role of advocating the commission of a felony.\nNo one has ever proven that the various acts involved are physically harmful between two consenting adults engaged in private sexual relations, nor that these acts have a deleterious effect on society.\nMarriage contemplates a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights, and the sanctity of this relationship must be protected from intrusion. Doesn\u2019t it seem odd that the statute allows the state to punish consenting adults for private sexual deviations, and married people for the private use of their marital intimacy even though they seek stability instead of divorce? In denying consensual private sex relations between adults, the legislature makes criminals out of a large section of ordinary, normal people in New Mexico who have left the biblical text and seek contentment under modern professional guidance. Public policy cannot sanction this type of legislation.\nIn Honselman v. People, 168 Ill. 172, 48 N.E. 304 (1897), in referring to sodomy, the court said, \u201cThe existence of such an offense is a disgrace to human nature.\u201d In 1961, the Illinois legislature removed private consensual sodomy from the category of crime.\nIn Indiana, the Supreme Court supported a plea of guilty to a charge that the defendant committed the \u201cabominable and detestable crime against nature with a beast: to wit a chicken\u201d !\nIn Perkins v. State, 234 F.Supp. 333 (W.D.N.C.1964), the judge said: \u201c[P]utting Perkins into the North Carolina Prison system is a little like throwing Brer Rabbit into the briarpatch.\u201d\nThe social revolution on the subject of private consensual sexual relations between two consenting adults has begun legally in the courts and in the legislature. New Mexico should follow this trend.\nAPPENDIX\nEvans, et al., \u201cThe Crimes Against Nature,\u201d 16 Journal of Public Law 159 (1967).\nGoodman, \u201cThe Bedroom Should not Be Within the Province of the Law,\u201d 4 Cal. West.L.Rev. 115 (1968).\nHefner, \u201cThe Legal Enforcement of Morality,\u201d 40 U.Colo.L.Rev. 199 (1968).\nHollis, \u201cCriminal Law \u2014 Sexual Offenses \u25a0 \u2014 Sodomy-\u2014-Cunnilingus,\u201d 8 Natural Resources J. 531 (1968).\nJohnsen, \u201cSodomy Statutes \u2014 A Need for Change,\u201d 13 S.D.L.Rev. 384 (1968).\nJones, \u201cSodomy \u2014 Crime or Sin?\u201d 12 U.Fla.L.Rev. 83 (1959).\nSpence, \u201cThe Law of Crime Against Nature,\u201d 32 N.C.L.Rev-. 312 (1954).\nCantor, \u201cDeviation and the Criminal Law,\u201d 55 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 441 (1964).\nSlovenko, \u201cSexual Deviation: Response to an Adaptational Crisis,\u201d 40 U.Colo.L. Rev. 222 (1968).\nNote, 49 Tex.L.Rev. 400 (Jan.1971).\nJoplin, \"Criminal Law: An Examination of the Oklahoma Laws Concerning Sexual Behavior,\u201d 23 Okl.L.Rev. 459 (1970).\nFoster & Freed, \u201cOffenses Against the Family,\u201d 32 U.M.K.C.L.Rev. 33 (1964).\n. Lamb, \u201cCriminal Law \u2014 Consensual Homosexual Behavior \u2014 The Need for Legislative Reform,\u201d 57 Ky.L.J. 591.\nFarrar, \u201cConstitutional Law \u2014 State Interference with Private, Consensual Marital Sexual Relations,\u201d 23 U.Miami L.Rev. 231 '(1968).\nMoran, \u201cSex Offenses and Penal Code Revision in Michigan,\u201d 14 Wayne L.Rev. 934 (1968).\nHarris, \u201cPrivate Consensual Adult Behavior: The Requirement of Harm to Others in the Enforcement of Morality.\u201d 14 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 581 (1967).\nCouris, \u201cSexual Freedom For Consenting Adults \u2014 Why Not?\u201d 2 Pac.L.J. 206 (1971).\n' \u25a0 Fisher, \u201cThe Sex Offender Provisions of the Proposed New Maryland Criminal Code: Should Private, Consenting Adult Homosexual Behavior be Excluded?\u201d 30 Md.L.Rev. 91 (1970).\nPloscowe, \u201cReport to the Hague: Suggested Revisions of Penal Law Relating to Sex Crimes and Crimes Against the Family.\u201d 50 Cornell L.Q. 425 (1965).\nNote, \u201cDeviate Sexual Behavior Under the New Illinois Criminal Code,\u201d 1965 Wash.U.L.Q. 220.", "type": "dissent", "author": "SUTIN, Judge" } ], "attorneys": [ "Asa Kelly, Jr., Silver City, for appellant.", "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "494 P.2d 173\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador TREJO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 748.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nFeb. 4, 1972.\nAsa Kelly, Jr., Silver City, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0511-01", "first_page_order": 637, "last_page_order": 642 }