Franklin v. State

Franklin v. State
Franklin v. State
Court	Florida Supreme Court
Full case name	Alva Gene Franklin, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. Stephen F. Joyce, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.
Decided	December 17, 1971
Citation(s)	257 So. 2d 21
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	B. K. Roberts, Richard W. Ervin, Vassar B. Carlton, James C. Adkins, Joseph A. Boyd Jr., David L. McCain, Hal P. Dekle
Case opinions
Decision by	Per curiam
Concurrence	Ervin, Carlton, Adkins, McCain, Dekle, Roberts
Dissent	Boyd
Keywords
	Decriminalization of sodomy ; Deviant sexual behavior ; LGBT rights ; Sex and the law ; Sexual orientation discrimination ;

Last updated March 26, 2023

Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1971), was a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's sodomy law as being "unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants."^[1] The court retained the state's prohibition on sodomy by ruling that anal and oral sex could still be prosecuted under the lesser charge of "unnatural and lascivious" conduct, thus reducing the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Issue

The case involved two men, Alva Gene Franklin and Stephen F. Joyce, who were arrested for committing a "crime against nature" during the early morning hours in a parked car near the St. Petersburg waterfront.^[2] Police charged them with a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison, for violating Florida Statute 800.01, enacted in 1868, which read:

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding twenty years.

In the case of Delaney v. State, 1966, the high court had previously ruled that although the common law meaning of "crime against nature" referred only to "copulation per anum and not per os," the courts of Florida had for decades already maintained that F. S. 800.01 included both oral and anal sex, and that the public could easily find out what the statute meant in that regard:^[3]

Pointing out that the statute, without further definition, merely prohibits ". . . the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with beast . . . ," the State logically posed the question whether it is easier for the public, or a defendant, to determine the nature of this crime by researching the history of the common law or the case law of this state. Although the opinions of this court are not always the essence of clarity, and never as lucid as we would have them, in this instance those previously rendered on this subject clearly advise all people that in this state the abominable crime against nature includes copulation either by mouth or by anus. These decisions are certainly more readily available and more easily understood than the common law. We conclude, therefore, that Section 800.01, as previously construed by this court in the cited cases, does prohibit the act charged against this appellant, and did and does afford him, and all others persons, notice that the act complained of was a crime in this state with at least the degree of definiteness required by our constitutions.

However, five years later in the Franklin case, the court explicitly reversed itself on this point.

Decision

In its decision, issued on December 17, 1971, the Supreme Court overturned the felony convictions of Franklin and Joyce, which had been upheld on appeal by a district court, and stated:^[1]

The renewed attack on the language of this statute for constitutional vagueness and overbreadth is not surprising in view of the guarded wording used in such statutes in 1868 when it was drafted. A very serious question is raised as to whether the statute meets the recognized constitutional test that it inform the average person of common intelligence as to what is prohibited so that he need not speculate as to the statutory meaning. If the language does not meet this test, then it must fall and the matter must be left to legislative correction. . . .
The language in this statute could entrap unsuspecting citizens and subject them to 20-year sentences for which the statute provides. Such a sentence is equal to that for manslaughter and would no doubt be a shocking revelation to persons who do not have an understanding of the meaning of the statute. . . .
The statute, 800.01, is void on its face as unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants. We anticipate and recommend legislative study of the subject and, pending further legislation in the matter, society will continue to be protected from this sort of reprehensible act under Section 800.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provides: "Unnatural and lascivious act. Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months.
Under the evidence in this case, the conduct denounced in Section 800.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is a lesser included offense. Accordingly we must, without any criticism of the able trial jurist who was following the decisions then existing, reverse the two judgments adjudging the defendants of being guilty of a felony and remand the causes to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment of guilty of Section 800.02 which is a misdemeanor, and to impose sentence accordingly. In view of our former decisions, this judgment holding the felony statute void is not retroactive, but prospective only. We recede from prior opinions inconsistent with this holding.

Thus, consensual sodomy was reduced to a misdemeanor, and the lower court was ordered to find Franklin and Joyce guilty of the lesser crime.

Since the Florida Supreme Court ruling let stand convictions made before 1971, in Wainwright v. Stone two inmates convicted under the 1868 statute, Raymond Stone and Eugene Huffman, brought a case of habeas corpus before a federal court, arguing that the Florida statute was unconstitutional. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, but on November 5, 1973, the United States Supreme Court reversed the appellate court decision and affirmed the men's convictions in accordance with the Florida Supreme Court's right to declare its ruling not retroactively effective.^[4]

Other cases

In other cases after 1971, the Florida Supreme Court held that the average citizen of the time would be baffled by the meaning of "detestable and abominable crime against nature" (written in 1868) but would clearly understand that the phrase "unnatural and lascivious act" (written in 1917) referred to both anal sex and oral sex, and so allowed Florida police and courts to continue with arrests and convictions for such deeds.^[2] For instance, in Thomas v. State, the court said:

We adhere to recent decisions of this Court holding that the words "unnatural and lascivious" as used in Section 800.02, Florida Statutes, are not void for vagueness and that these words are of such a character that an ordinary citizen can easily determine what character or act is intended.

These cases included, among others:

Morris v. State, 261 So. 2d 563, April 7, 1972^[5]
Witherspoon v. State, 278 So. 2d 611, May 30, 1973^[6]
State v. Fasano, 284 So. 2d 683, October 17, 1973^[7]
Thomas v. State, 326 So. 2d 413, December 3, 1975^[8]

Legislation

The 1972 Florida Legislature tried but failed to agree on a replacement for the "crimes against nature" statute because legislators could not agree on whether opposite-sex couples should be included in the definition of sodomy or not. In fact, Dade County senators introduced an amendment to decriminalize all consenting-adult sex, but the proposal was defeated 24-18. Finally in 1974, the Legislature recodified and retained the "lewd and lascivious" section as a second-degree misdemeanor (punishable by a fine of $500 or up to 60 days in jail), which thereafter functioned as the state's sodomy law, enforceable against both same-sex and opposite sex couples, but primarily used to stigmatize gays and lesbians as criminals whenever the state considered an issue dealing with their civil rights.^[9]

The United States Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas struck down all remaining sodomy laws nationwide, including Florida's, as being unconstitutional violations of due process and privacy.^[2] Nonetheless, as of 2013, the law remained part of Florida Statutes.^[10]

In 1977, following the defeat of a gay-rights ordinance in Miami-Dade County in the face of massive opposition organized by the Save Our Children campaign, Anita Bryant urged the Legislature to reinstate the "crimes against nature" law.^[2] Legislators declined to do so, but instead passed a law forbidding adoption by gays and lesbians which remained in force until overturned as unconstitutional by a Florida appeals court in 2010.^[11]

Related Research Articles

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were inherited from colonial laws in the 17th century. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex, many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes, in some cases even including acts between married persons.

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

The crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent and are legally punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy and bestiality.

Jessica's Law is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law, as well as laws in several other states, designed to protect potential victims and reduce a sexual offender's ability to re-offend. A version of Jessica's Law, known as the Jessica Lunsford Act, was introduced at the federal level in 2005 but was never enacted into law by Congress.

John Webb was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court (1986–1998). Prior to serving on North Carolina's highest court, Justice Webb had been a Superior Court (trial) judge and a judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Tennessee statute proscribing "crime against nature" was held not unconstitutionally vague as applied to cunnilingus, satisfying as it does the due process standard of giving sufficient warning that men may so conduct themselves as to avoid that which is forbidden. Viewed against that standard, the challenged statutory phrase is no vaguer than many other terms describing criminal offenses at common law, which are now codified in criminal codes. Moreover, the Tennessee Supreme Court by previously rejecting claims that the statute was to be narrowly applied has given sufficiently clear notice that it would be held applicable to acts such as those involved here when such a case as this arose.

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be "unnatural" or "immoral". Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples, and have mostly been used to target homosexual couples.

In the United States, each state and territory sets the age of consent either by statute or the common law applies, and there are several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators. Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal age of consent is between 16 and 18. In some places, civil and criminal laws within the same state conflict with each other.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Louisiana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Louisiana, and same-sex marriage has been recognized in the state since June 2015 as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Massachusetts enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT people. The U.S. state of Massachusetts is one of the most LGBT-friendly states in the country. In 2004, it became the first U.S. state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and the sixth jurisdiction worldwide, after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Arkansas may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arkansas. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia in 2020.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the United States state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT persons. LGBT rights in the state are a recent occurrence, with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective since July 1, 2020, there is a statewide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws effective since July 1, 2020, now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. commonwealth of Kentucky still face some legal challenges not experienced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kentucky. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. On February 12, 2014, a federal judge ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but the ruling was put on hold pending review by the Sixth Circuit. Same sex-marriage is now legal in the state under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, and all other same sex marriage bans elsewhere in the country, was handed down on June 26, 2015.

This article concerns LGBT history in Florida.

State v. Whitmarsh was a South Dakota Supreme Court case decided on November 18, 1910, which asked whether or not fellatio, or oral sex, should be classified as sodomy. The contemporary federal common law definition of sodomy did not include fellatio. The court ruled that fellatio was an "abominable and disgusting" crime against nature and outlawed it between any two persons, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation or age. The case set a precedent for other states' laws and remained in effect in South Dakota for the next 66 years, until all sodomy laws, including the "crime against nature" statute, were abolished by the South Dakota Legislature in 1976.

Rape laws vary across the United States jurisdictions. However, rape is federally defined for statistical purposes as:

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

References

1 2 Franklin v. State, 257So. 2d21 (Fla.1971).
1 2 3 4 Eskridge, William N., Jr. Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861–2003. New York: Viking/Penguin, 2008. Page numbers not available in the Google preview.
↑ Delaney v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1966
↑ Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973).
↑ Morris v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1972
↑ Witherspoon v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1973
↑ State v. Fasano, Florida Supreme Court, 1973
↑ Thomas v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1975
↑ Turbe, Laura A. "Florida's Inconsistent Use of the Best Interests of the Child Standard," 33 Stetson L. Rev. 369 (2003-2004), accessed July 16, 2011, pp. 377-381. Archived June 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine See footnote 34, p. 374.
↑ Florida Statutes 2010, Official Internet Site of the Florida Legislature, accessed July 16, 2011 The statute reads: "800.02 — Unnatural and lascivious act. — A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section."
↑ "Florida won't challenge end to gay adoption ban," Orlando Sentinel online, 22 October 2010.

External links

Text of Franklin v. State, 257 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1971) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Leagle
Eskridge, William N., Jr. Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in the United States, 1861-2003. New York: Viking/Penguin, 2008. ISBN 0-670-01862-7

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[franklin71-1] 1 2 Franklin v. State, 257So. 2d21 (Fla.1971).

[dispass-2] 1 2 3 4 Eskridge, William N., Jr. Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861–2003. New York: Viking/Penguin, 2008. Page numbers not available in the Google preview.

[delaney-3] Delaney v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1966

[wainwright-4] Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973).

[5] Morris v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1972

[6] Witherspoon v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1973

[7] State v. Fasano, Florida Supreme Court, 1973

[8] Thomas v. State, Florida Supreme Court, 1975

[turbe-9] Turbe, Laura A. "Florida's Inconsistent Use of the Best Interests of the Child Standard," 33 Stetson L. Rev. 369 (2003-2004), accessed July 16, 2011, pp. 377-381. Archived June 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine See footnote 34, p. 374.

[10] Florida Statutes 2010, Official Internet Site of the Florida Legislature, accessed July 16, 2011 The statute reads: "800.02 — Unnatural and lascivious act. — A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section."

[mccollum-11] "Florida won't challenge end to gay adoption ban," Orlando Sentinel online, 22 October 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]