|
___________________________________________________
|
|
|
Virginia Court of Appeals Affirms Sodomy Statute - Court SummaryText of the ruling upholding ten appeals from criminal conviction for solicitation to commit oral sodomy in violation of Code §§ 18.2-29 and 18.2-361.
Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Elder ELVIS GENE DePRIEST LARRY RIERSON JONES RUSSELL NEWAII POINDEXTER JAMES PATRICK FAY PHILLIP WAYNE EVANS BARRY WAYNE HODGES JOHN JOHNSON, S/K/A JOHN WILLIAM JOHNSON LAWRENCE T. MARTYS, S/K/A LAWRENCE P. MARTYS EVERETTE ELMO DAVIDSON RONALD WALLER, S/K/A RONALD THOMAS WALLER
JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. NOVEMBER 21, 2000 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Sam Garrison (David Denton Lawrence; Michael B. Massey; Trumbo & Massey, P.L.C., Richard Lee Lawrence & Associates, on briefs), for appellants. John H. McLees, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Amicus Curiae: Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia (William G. Kocol; Eugene M. Lawson, Jr., Resident Counsel, on brief), for appellants. Amicus Curiae: The Liberty Project (Julie M. Carpenter; Jared O. Freedman; Elena N. Broder-Feldman; Jenner & Block, on brief), for appellants. Amicus Curiae: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc., and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (Michael Adams; Matthew Coles; Marianne Merritt; Philip Hirschkop; Rebecca K. Glenberg; Stephen R. Scarborough; Hirschkop & Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellants. These ten consolidated appeals are from judgments of conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke for solicitation to commit oral sodomy in violation of Code §§ 18.2-29 and 18.2-361. The appellants contend that the trial court erred in ruling that Code § 18.2-361: (1) does not violate the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by Article I of the Constitution of Virginia; (2) does not violate the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment contained in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution of Virginia and in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and (3) does not violate the prohibitions against an establishment of religion contained in Article I, Section 16, of the Constitution of Virginia and in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Commonwealth contends that the appellants lack standing to attack the constitutionality of Code § 18.2-361 facially and that each may assert the statute's constitutional invalidity only as the statute applies to him in his respective case. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|
|
| ||||