The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers
The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States
By George Painter
© Copyright, George Painter 1991-2002
Arizona
"Sodomy has been considered wrong since early times
in our civilization."
The Post-Revolution Period, 1776-1873
When the Arizona Territory was organized in 1863,1
it was given all the laws of the New Mexico Territory,2
which included a common-law reception statute. Since England had lowered the
penalty for sodomy from death to life imprisonment just two years before the
Arizona Territory was organized, this made life imprisonment the compulsory
sentence for sodomy.
In 1864, the legislature passed a criminal code that included a sodomy law.3
The penalty was set at five years-life, with a common-law definition.4
Period Summary:
Arizona recognized sodomy
as a crime from the time it was given separate status from the New Mexico
Territory. The common-law term "crime against nature" was used,
but there is no evidence of prosecutions in the territory during this
time.
The Victorian Morality Period, 1873-1948
In a new code adopted in 1901,5 common-law
offenses were abrogated.6
In its first constitution from 1910, Arizona enacted a completely worthless
right to privacy provision, taken verbatim from Washington’s pioneering
worthless privacy provision. It reads:
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home
invaded, without authority of law.
7
As written, any statute, enacted for any purpose whatever, can be used to
override privacy rights.
The first reported case in Arizona was Weaver v. Territory,8
from 1912. The unanimous decision was that an act of fellatio did not
constitute an offense under the law. Justice Henry Ross, writing for the
Court, said
We greatly regret that our statute is not broad enough to cover the
facts of this and like cases, and express the hope that our Legislature
will extend its terms.
9
The Arizona legislature acted faster than any other in the nation in
response to a plea from a court to extend the sodomy law to cover fellatio.
Less than seven months later, a law was in place. In 1913, the legislature
adopted a statute10 for the recompilation of
state law. One provision denied the compiler "any power to change or
modify or make any law or laws,"11 but
that was ignored. The sodomy law was changed to include "the penetration
of the mouth of any human being by the organ of any male person,"12
the penalty was reduced to one to five years,13
and the crime was considered complete upon proof of penetration only.14
Another new law adopted in the Code was that a wife was considered
competent to testify against her husband, but not vice versa, in a trial for
"the crime against nature, or any similar offense[.]"15
The absence of the coverage of cunnilingus from the 1913 revision was
noticed and corrected with a 1917 statute16
that any person
who shall wilfully [sic] commit any lewd or lascivious act upon
or with the body or any part of member thereof, of any male or female
person, with the intent of arousing, appealing to or gratifying the lust
or passion or sexual desires of either of such persons, in any unnatural
manner, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the State
prison not less than one year nor more than five years.
17
In 1933, the Arizona Supreme Court decided Dutzler v. State. 18
This case concerned whether or not a boy of 14 was competent to testify as a
witness. The Court decided that he was, but stated the sexist view that it was
"rather unusual" that the boy’s father knew the date of his son’s
birth, as he had testified in the trial. Presumably, this was information that
was supposed to be within the province only of mothers.
The Arizona Supreme Court decided the case of State v. Farmer19
in 1944. A trial court certified a question to the high court for an answer,
namely whether the language of the 1917 "lewd and lascivious act"
statute was defined clearly. The Court unanimously found that the law used
"common everyday words, with no hidden or mysterious meaning attached to
them."20 The Court also added that
"the act defining the offense is constitutional."21
The issue of privacy was raised in the fascinating case of Faber v.
State,22 decided later in 1944. This
apparently was the first sodomy case in the nation specifically to
raise the right to privacy. Adam Faber was investigated by Phoenix police for
possible violation of narcotics laws. When they arrived at his front door, no
one appeared to be home, so they went to the back door. One officer, James
Wallace, noticed a screened sleeping room and he
heard voices in this room. The language being used was obscene
indicating, he thought at first, that a difficulty was taking place
inside. He testified that the conversation he heard between the two men
showed that a vicious act was occurring between them.
23
Wallace then called the other officers over and they all voyeuristically
listened for another five minutes before bursting in on Adam Faber and Howard
Wojack. Wojack was found "lying on his back in the bed" and
testified that Faber had asked him to use the language that he did.24
An aside for the obvious question. Faber obviously was fellating Wojack, and
apparently liked hearing abusive language from the fellatee during the
procedure, but the police swore that they heard a "conversation"
between the two during the act. How one talks and performs fellatio at
the same time is a mystery. Wojack, a soldier Faber picked up downtown, was
not prosecuted, presumably because he was taking the "male" role in
fellatio. Faber challenged his conviction on the grounds of the warrantless
search and that "the privacy of his home" had been invaded.25
The Court rejected this challenge because the police could tell through
"the sense of hearing" that a crime was in progress, and this
justified the immediate, warrantless arrest.26
The trial court had forbidden a cross-examination of Officer Wallace regarding
alleged warrantless raids he apparently was well-known for conducting on local
hotel rooms. This was called "immaterial" to the case and the
Supreme Court sustained the ruling.27 Faber
also challenged his solo prosecution, but the Court dismissed his claim saying
that
there is no provision in the Penal Code of this state requiring that
all persons concerned in the commission of a crime must be convicted or
all will be acquitted.
28
That, of course, did not answer Faber’s claim. He questioned why Wojack
had not been prosecuted, whether or not he was acquitted or convicted.
The Supreme Court obviously was so outraged at the consensual act of fellatio
that all of these violations of Faber’s rights were overlooked.
Period Summary:
Arizona became one of the
more restrictive jurisdictions concerning sodomy during this time.
Although common-law crimes were abrogated, the common-law term "crime
against nature" continued to be used, and the law was expanded to
include fellatio, then cunnilingus. Convictions uniformly were sustained
by the appellate courts. The nation’s first sodomy case raising even a
rudimentary privacy claim arose in Arizona during this period, but that
claim was ignored by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Kinsey Period, 1948-1986
In 1951, the Arizona legislature passed three laws that cracked down on
sexual offenders of the homosexual type. The first was an emergency law29
requiring all persons convicted of sodomy or lewd or lascivious act, "or
other offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct" to register with
their county sheriff, and to report all changes of address to the sheriff.
Failure to do so was a misdemeanor.30
A law also was enacted31 that defined any
person who "loiters in or about a public toilet in a park" as
vagrant and thus subject to up to six months in jail and/or a fine of up to
$300.32 If the person had previously been
convicted of violating the sodomy or lewd or lascivious act laws, "or any
other offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct," then the penalty was
raised to a maximum of five years in prison.33
The law was declared an emergency to preserve the "public peace, health,
and safety."34
The sodomy law also was adjusted in 1951.35
The reference to the use of the male organ in the mouth was eliminated.36
The penalty was raised from 1-5 years to 5-20 years37
and this law also was declared an emergency, for the same reasons as the
preceding law.38
A few months later, the Arizona Supreme Court got the case of Gusick v.
Boies39 that decided how high bail could be
set for accused sodomites. The Court decided that $75,000 for each of two
counts of sodomy "constituted a clear abuse of discretion" and
ordered the bail lowered to $30,000 for each count.40
In 1953, the Court faced the case of State v. Potts,41
in which the defendant had been convicted of two counts of fellatio and
acquitted on several "lesser offenses" under the lewd or lascivious
act statute.42 However, the fellatio
convictions were returned under the state’s sodomy law. The unanimous
decision of the Court was that, "[h]owever much we dislike to agree"
with the defendant that fellatio was not indictable under the sodomy law as
amended in 1951, he had to go free.43 The act
of fellatio had to be prosecuted under the "lewd or lascivious acts"
statute, but since he was acquitted of all counts under that law, he was free
to go.
Defendant Gusick returned to the Supreme Court in its next sodomy case, State
ex rel. Jones v. Superior Court, 44
from 1955. The Arizona Supreme Court undid a lower court’s efforts to free a
man from prison on a sodomy charge. Gusick pleaded guilty to 20 counts of
fellatio and received a sentence of 3-5 years on each count, to be
served consecutively, guaranteeing him 60-100 years in prison for consensual
sexual activity.45 Gusick not only challenged
the sentence, but also raised numerous apparently frivolous points. The
challenge to the sentence was dismissed by the Court because state law
permitted a judge to direct that sentences run consecutively.46
He refused to give up. In 1956, he was the subject of two cases two weeks
apart, both rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court. In the first,
47 the Court refused to grant him
a writ of habeas corpus. Another petition on the same issue was
rejected by the Court, claiming that there were "no legal grounds"
for issuance of the writ.48 The U.S. Supreme
Court also refused to intervene.49
In 1956, Arizona enacted a unique statute50
providing that any
person, except in the case of a minor by the parent, who seizes,
confines, inveigles, entices, decoys, abducts, conceals, kidnaps or
carries away any child under the age of fourteen years by any means
whatsoever with intent to hold or detain, or who holds or detains such
child for the purpose of raping or committing sodomy, or lewd or
lascivious acts upon the person of such child, or a person who aids or
abets any such conduct, is guilty of a felony.
51
The penalty was set at life without parole if the child was harmed and
20-50 years with no parole until 20 years if there had been no harm.52
The law also had an emergency clause so that it would take effect immediately.53
By the wording, parents were exempt from abducting their children for sexual
purposes.
Also in 1956, the Arizona Supreme Court faced the curious case of State
v. McDaniel.54 High school teacher Winston
McDaniel had been arrested on a charge of fellatio with a 14-year-old male he
picked up in a café. The chief of police in the town of Coolidge was
permitted to testify, over objection, in McDaniel’s trial that he
was curious to know if a person—or, rather, if he had ever taken any
steps to seek medical help in helping him to overcome his proclivity or
desires for having unnatural sex acts with persons of the same sex as he.
55
The police chief apparently did not explain what "natural" sex
acts with persons of the same sex would be. McDaniel allegedly told the police
chief that he had "been given shots by a physician" and that
after getting these shots his condition that we had been discussing in
the car was helped and relieved greatly until apparently the shots wore
off prior to the incidents that had transpired at this particular time for
which this hearing was being held.
56
The admission of this testimony was upheld,57
as was that of three other teenagers who testified to past importunities on
the part of McDaniel for fellatio with them. The logic of the Court in
upholding the admission of acts not charged in the information was that
[c]ertain crimes today are recognized as stemming from a specific
emotional propensity for sexual aberration. The fact that in the near past
one has given way to unnatural proclivities has a direct bearing upon the
ultimate issue whether in the case being tried he is guilty of a
particular unnatural act of passion. The importance of establishing this
fact far outweighs the prejudicial possibility that the jury might convict
for general rather than specific criminality.
58
Also overlooked by the Court was a statement made by a newspaper reporter
in the presence of some jurors to the defendant’s attorney: "I do not
like the company you keep." The state claimed that this was "a
joke" and the Supreme Court concluded that this point was "much ado
about nothing" and affirmed McDaniel’s conviction.59
Another challenge to the Arizona law’s vagueness was dismissed by the
Supreme Court in Lovelace v. Clark60 in
1957. Curtis Lovelace was seeking release via habeas corpus based on
the vagueness of the "lewd and lascivious acts" statute. After
noting that they had sustained the law in a similar challenge 13 years earlier
and, after listing a number of cases from around the country that rejected
vagueness arguments about their laws, the Court concluded that "there is
no merit" to Lovelace’s appeal.61
The next reported case was from 1962, State v. Sheldon.62
Philip Sheldon had been arrested in Phoenix after suspicious police saw him
and a 15-year-old male in a car at four o’clock in the morning. They
released the defendant after a search of his car found only a beer carton, but
the teenager, who voluntarily submitted to fellatio with Sheldon twice and
associated with him, went to the police and told them that Sheldon "is a
queer." With this news, Sheldon was stopped and taken to the police
station for questioning.63 At the station, he
acknowledged having "no sexual desire for women, that men were attractive
to him" and, while acknowledging "probably" having some
"tendencies toward other men," Sheldon told the interrogating police
officer "you probably do too." The officer’s reaction was not
recorded.64 The Supreme Court believed that the
teenager was an accomplice, and that his testimony needed corroboration. They
believed that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient and said that
admissions of homosexual tendencies to police interrogators may be
corroborative of the commission of sex offenses.
65
In the 1966 case of State v. Alkhowarizmi,66
the Arizona Supreme Court gave a rare victory to a sodomy defendant, and a
good thing, too. The two consenting males received a sentence of 15 years-life
for an act that occurred inside a parked van. It is unclear how a sentence of
such severity was given by the trial court, since both parties were adults
and, even if the sexual activity had been sodomy (anal sex), a 20-year maximum
would have been permitted. The Court unanimously decided that the police
officer’s testimony was entirely circumstantial, and proof of penetration
had not been established. The conviction was overturned.67
In the 1968 case of State v. Jones68
the Arizona Court of Appeals issued the state’s third written opinion
rejecting a vagueness challenge to the state’s "lewd and lascivious
acts" statute.69
The Arizona Supreme Court decided in the 1970 case of State v. Mortimer
et al.70 that masturbation of another
person constituted a violation of the state’s "lewd or lascivious
conduct" statute. Police officers in Tucson noticed Ronald Mortimer and
Simon Perez
sitting on a bus stop bench in front of a bar; the defendants were
embracing and kissing each other on the lips; the defendant Mortimer
unzipped the trousers of defendant Perez, and commenced manually
masturbating Perez.
71
The question as to whether this conduct constituted a violation of the law
was certified to the Supreme Court before Mortimer and Perez were sentenced.
As to whether mutual masturbation was "unnatural," as required by
the law, the Court said
the act of masturbation by one adult male upon another adult male is an
act committed in an unnatural manner. We are aware of a rising school of
thought which decries the stigma placed by society upon homosexual
activity, but our sole mission here is to interpret the statute as enacted
by the legislature. In contemporary Arizona, and as of the date this
statute was last amended (1965), homosexual activity is and was considered
unnatural.
72
The Court cited no studies to prove this belief. Even though the law
may smack of victorian morality, and represent a standard not in
keeping with the times, this is a problem for the legislative process
rather than the courts.
73
The Arizona Court of Appeals, deciding the 1975 case of Johnson v.
Phoenix City Court,74 upheld a Phoenix
ordinance that barred the commission of
any grossly indecent act in any open or public place within the City
which outrages decency and is injurious to or tends to corrupt morals[.]
75
William Johnson had been arrested under this ordinance in an adult movie
theatre when he
confronted a Phoenix Police Detective and allegedly grabbed the front
of the officer’s pants and, while holding on to the pants and the
officer’s private parts, attempted to pull him into a booth.
76
The Court unanimously rejected Johnson’s arguments that the ordinance was
too vague to be constitutional.77
In the 1976 case of State v. Bateman,78
the Arizona Supreme Court again dealt with the issue of privacy rights. Two
trial courts issued conflicting decisions as to the constitutionality of the
sodomy and lewd and lascivious acts statutes, and the Court of Appeals struck
the laws down. By a 3-2 vote, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals
and held the laws constitutional as applied to people not married to each
other. The Court rejected freedom of expression79
and vagueness80 as potential challenging points
to the laws. However, recognizing the right to privacy, the Court issued a
contradictory statement that "the State cannot interfere with the private
sexual behavior of two adults," but it could "regulate sexual
misconduct."81 Apparently interpreting the
right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution the same as the empty words of
the Arizona Constitution’s privacy provision, the Court apparently said that
any sexual behavior currently legal was constitutionally protected, but, once
outlawed by the legislature, lost its constitutional status. Sodomy, in
particular, could be prohibited without violating the right to privacy because
it
has been considered wrong since early times in our civilization.
Deuteronomy 23:17, Leviticus 18:22-23; 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 215; 2
Pollock & Maitland, The History of English Law 556.
82
Lewd and lascivious acts "have also been traditionally
prohibited." The Court then issued another contradictory conclusion that
sexual activity between two consenting adults in private is not a
matter of concern for the State except insofar as the legislature has
acted to properly [sic] regulate the moral welfare of its people,
and has specifically prohibited sodomy and other specified lewd and
lascivious acts.
83
In dissent, Justice Frank Gordon referred to the restrictions on
"consenting heterosexual adults"84
and acknowledged that he was
baffled as to how the majority can acknowledge that ‘[t]he right [of
privacy] exists within the contexts of the intimate sexual relations
between consenting adults in private’, whether single or married, and
then can conclude that the Legislature may separate certain of these
relations it finds distasteful, label them as misconduct and make the
participants felons subject to a prison term of up to twenty years in the
state penitentiary.
85
He also said that "the majority implies that sexual activity for
purposes other than having children may be prohibited by the
Legislature."86
The legislature passed a comprehensive criminal code revision87
in 1977. The preamble to the law stated that the purpose of the code was to
"proscribe conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens
substantial harm to individual or public interests."88
This apparently was the purpose behind the retention of sodomy and lewd and
lascivious acts as crimes, even between consenting adults. The penalty for
each was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of 30
days in jail and/or a $200 fine. The language of the statutes otherwise was
not changed.89
Also included in the code was a new loitering law with a broad prohibition
against anyone who
present in a public place and in an offensive manner or in a manner
likely to disturb the public peace, solicits another person to engage in
any sexual offense[.]
90
The haste that the legislature showed in keeping these acts criminal has
shown its face more than once when the laws had to be reworded. In 1978,
before the effective date of the new code, a lengthy (282 pages) revision to
the code was enacted,91 in effect, a
replacement for the 1977 code, correcting numerous problems from the first
law. The sodomy and lewd and lascivious acts laws each had the word
"knowingly" inserted into the language, so that those who somehow
committed either act without knowing that they did so could not be prosecuted.92
The 1978 code did make one progressive change to the law. It repealed the
state’s sex offender registration statute.93
However, absence makes the heart grow fonder so, in 1983, the Arizona
legislature reenacted the sex offender registration law.94
Conviction of any sex crime under Arizona law would trigger the operation of
its provisions, as would a conviction "in any jurisdiction" under a
similar law.95
In 1985, the sodomy law had to be clarified further96
that the acts, as penalized in these sections, were criminal only with an
adult, whereas acts with children were covered by other laws. This law also
needed an emergency clause to have it become effective immediately, because of
the chaos in state courts the laws were generating.97
This same law also made an ameliorative change to the sex offender
registration law. Now the trigger for the operation of the law was conviction
only in another "state," thus eliminating convictions outside the
United States.98
Period Summary:
Arizona’s conservatism
on the issue of Gay sex continued unabated during this time. Rather than
following the Kinsey view of sex, the state leaned toward that of Joseph
McCarthy. During the 1950s, Arizona reacted strongly to sex crimes by
adopting several harsh measures and, going against the Kinsey and American
Law Institute positions, raising the penalty for sodomy to one of the most
severe in the nation. Constitutional challenges to the sodomy law
routinely were unsuccessful, including one which challenged the right of
the state to prosecute married couples.
The Post-Hardwick Period, 1986-Present
In 1990, the Court of Appeals, deciding State v. Lammie,99
ruled that the sex offender registration law required those convicted of
attempts to commit a covered sex offense to register, even though the statute’s
language did not require registration for attempts.
A curious dictum in State v. Crane, 100
from 1990, may have opened an exemption in the sodomy law. The Court of
Appeals said, "[u]nder the Arizona statutes, consensual sexual conduct
with one’s wife is not a crime[.]"101
The Court gave no citation for its conclusion and did not refer
to the contrary decision in Bateman.
The sex offender registration law was challenged and upheld in 1992 in State
v. Noble.102 A lower court had struck the
law down and noted that it covered convictions for private, consensual
activity. The Arizona Supreme Court, in reversing the lower court, found such
speculation unnecessary since the sex act in the case before them dealt with
child molestation. The law was constitutional because the registrants
are not forced to display a scarlet letter to the world; outside of a
few regulatory exceptions, the information provided by sex offenders
pursuant to the registration statute is kept confidential.
103
In 1993, an amendment was made to the registration law104
changing the word "state" to "jurisdiction," so as to
cover convictions in the District of Columbia or territories and, presumably,
foreign countries once again.105
A bill to exempt misdemeanant sex offenders from DNA testing was vetoed in
1995 by Governor Fife Symington. He said in his veto message, in part, that
"he" (a sex offender) is "given notice that future crimes could
be more easily traced to him[.]"106
A bill signed by Symington just a couple of weeks later was one107
that again revised the state’s sex offender registration law. The crime
against nature and lewd and lascivious acts were removed from the compulsory
registration provision,108 but judges were
given the power to order anyone convicted of either crime to register if the
crimes were found to have been committed because of "sexual
motivation."109 It is hard to imagine a
sexual crime committed without sexual motivation, but if a defendant can prove
such a lack of motivation, he or she will be exempt from registration.
In 2001, Arizona repealed its sodomy law.110 One legislator who opposed the
repeal suggested the possibility of a referendum on the repeal, but backed
away from the idea quickly. Governor Jane Hull signed the repeal bill despite
a concerted lobbying effort by right-wing organizations.111
The age of consent is 18.
Period Summary:
The state was one of the
more vigorous states in pushing its sex offender registration law and
requiring those convicted of consensual sodomy to register with law
enforcement officials as sex criminals. In 2001, Arizona repealed its
sodomy law, rendering the sex offender registration law innocuous, at
least proactively.
Footnotes
1 12 Stat. 664, enacted Feb. 24, 1863.
2 Id. at 665, §2.
3 Compiled Laws, Arizona Territory,
(Detroit:Richmond Backus & Co., 1877), page 76, §48, enacted
Feb. 4, 1864.
4 Id.
5 The Revised Statutes of Arizona
Territory, (Columbia MO:E.W. Stephens, 1901), enacted June 20, 1901.
6 Id. at 1183, §3.
7 Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, §8.
8 127 P. 724, decided Oct. 24, 1912. It is
unclear why the style of this case includes the word
"Territory," since Arizona became a state in February of 1912.
9 Id. Justice Ross was on the
Arizona Supreme Court a long time. He also wrote the Court’s decisions
in the 1933 Dutzler case and the 1944 Farmer case. He
allowed another Justice to write the 1944 Faber case.
10 Laws of Arizona 1913, page 17,
ch. 64, enacted May 16, 1913.
11 Id. at 19, §7.
12 Revised Statutes of Arizona 1913.
Penal Code, page 64, §280.
13 Id.
14 Id. §281.
15 Id. at 236, §1228.
16 Laws of Arizona 1917, page 2,
ch. 2, enacted Feb. 15, 1917.
17 Id. at 2-3.
18 19 P.2d 326, decided Mar. 1, 1933.
19 148 P.2d 1002, decided May 1, 1944.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 152 P.2d 671, decided Oct. 30, 1944.
23 Id. at 673.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 673-674.
28 Id. at 674. Adam Faber was
released from prison on March 1, 1946. (Correspondence from S.
Strand, Arizona Department of Corrections, Jan. 16, 1997).
29 Laws of Arizona 1951, page 252,
ch. 105, enacted Mar. 28, 1951. Ironically, all three laws were signed by
Governor Howard Pyle, the Republican elected in an upset in 1950 with the
help of Barry Goldwater, who supposedly was Arizona’s beacon of
individual freedom. However, by 1992, Goldwater was endorsing a proposed
Gay rights law for Phoenix. See the Washington Blade, July 31,
1992, page 26. Pyle’s career was destroyed by his moral crusade after
his administration made a series of raids on polygamists and the public
had a negative reaction. The Oregonian, Apr. 13, 1997, 22A:1.
30 Laws of Arizona 1951, at
252-253.
31 Laws of Arizona 1951, page 262,
ch. 111, enacted Mar. 28, 1951.
32 Id. at 261-262.
33 Id. at 262.
34 Id.
35 Laws of Arizona 1951, page 365,
ch. 134, enacted Mar. 29, 1951.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 366.
38 Id.
39 233 P.2d 446, decided June 26, 1951.
40 Id. at 449.
41 254 P.2d 1023, decided Mar. 23, 1953.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 280 P.2d 691, decided Mar. 1, 1955.
45 Id. at 692-693.
46 Id. at 696.
47 Gusick v. Eyman, 302 P.2d 944,
decided Oct. 30, 1956.
48 303 P.2d 531, decided Nov. 14, 1956.
49 353 U.S. 913, decided Mar. 25, 1957.
50 Laws of Arizona 1956, page 143,
ch. 92, enacted Apr. 9, 1956.
51 Id. at 144, §B.
52 Id. §C.
53 Id. §2.
54 298 P.2d 798, decided June 12, 1956.
55 Id. at 800.
56 Id. at 801.
57 Id.
58 Id. at 802.
59 Id. at 803-804.
60 315 P.2d 876, decided Sep. 27, 1957.
61 Id.
62 369 P.2d 917, decided Mar. 14, 1962.
63 Id. at 918-919.
64 Id. at 919.
65 Id. at 922.
66 421 P.2d 871, decided Dec. 30, 1966.
67 Id. at 872-873.
68 446 P.2d 487, decided Nov. 4, 1968.
69 Id. at 489.
70 467 P.2d 60, decided Apr. 1, 1970.
71 Id. at 61.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 535 P.2d 1067, decided June 18, 1975.
Review by the Arizona Supreme Court denied July 14, 1975.
75 Id. at 1068.
76 Id.
77 Id. at 1069.
78 547 P.2d 6, decided Mar. 10, 1976.
Rehearing denied Apr. 13, 1976. Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 864, decided
Oct. 4, 1976.
79 547 P.2d, at 8.
80 Id. at 8-9.
81 Id. at 9.
82 Id. at 10.
83 Id.
84 Id.
85 Id.
86 Id.
87 Laws of Arizona 1977, page 678,
ch. 142, enacted May 31, 1977, effective Oct. 1, 1978.
88 Id. at 689, §13-101 (1).
89 Id. at 730, §13-1411 (crime
against nature) and §13-1412 (lewd and lascivious acts).
90 Id. §13-2905 (A)(1).
91 Laws of Arizona 1978, page 677,
ch. 201, enacted June 9, 1978, effective Oct. 1, 1978.
92 Id. at 731, §13-1411 and
§13-1412.
93 Id. at 770, §242.
94 Laws of Arizona 1983, page 712,
ch. 202, enacted Apr. 20, 1983.
95 Id. at 717, §13.
96 Laws of Arizona 1985, ch. 364,
enacted May 16, 1985.
97 Id. at 1457, §47.
98 Id. at 1448, §32.
99 793 P.2d 134, decided Mar. 29, 1990.
Review by Arizona Supreme Court denied July 3, 1990.
100 799 P.2d 1380, decided May 31, 1990.
Review by Arizona Supreme Court denied Nov. 27, 1990.
101 Id. at 1384.
102 829 P.2d 1217, decided Apr. 21,
1992. The case of State v. McCuin, arguing the same point was
decided the same day and is published at 829 P.2d 1217.
103 Noble, at 1224.
104 Laws of Arizona 1993, page
33, ch. 15, enacted Mar. 26, 1993, effective immediately.
105 Id. §1.
106 Laws of Arizona 1995, Veto
Messages, Apr. 5, 1995 (Senate Bill 1133).
107 Laws of Arizona 1995. page
2008, ch. 257, enacted Apr. 19, 1995, effective July 13, 1995.
108 Id. at 2009, § 13-3821(A).
109 Id. at 2010, § 13-3821(B).
110 Laws of Arizona 2001. ch.
382, enacted May 8, 2001.
111 www.arizonarepublic.com.
The law was
signed by the Governor May 8, 2001.
