Rose v. Locke
Headline: Court upholds Tennessee 'crimes against nature' law as covering forced cunnilingus, reversing appeals court and allowing the conviction and sentence to stand for that sexual assault.
Holding: The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that Tennessee’s 'crimes against nature' law provided fair warning and validly covered forced cunnilingus, so the defendant’s conviction and sentence may stand.
- Allows Tennessee prosecutors to charge forced oral sex under the broad statute.
- Makes fair-warning challenges harder in similar prosecutions.
- Signals historic statutory phrases can be read broadly in some states.
Summary
Background
Respondent was a man convicted in Knox County, Tennessee for forcing his female neighbor, at knife-point, to partially undress and perform cunnilingus twice. He was sentenced to five to seven years under Tennessee’s law punishing 'crimes against nature' (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-707). State appellate courts affirmed, and a federal district court denied habeas relief; the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the law too vague to give fair warning.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the term 'crimes against nature' gave enough notice that forced cunnilingus was forbidden. It said the phrase has long historical use and many jurisdictions apply it broadly. The Court relied on Tennessee decisions (including Fisher and Sherrill) that rejected a narrow definition and equated Tennessee law with broader cases, and on other states' rulings applying similar language to cunnilingus. The Court concluded there was adequate warning and no unlawful retroactive enlargement, so it reversed the Court of Appeals and allowed the conviction to stand.
Real world impact
The decision makes it clearer in Tennessee that prosecutors can bring charges for forced oral sex under the state's broad 'crimes against nature' law. Defendants will have less success arguing they lacked fair warning when historic statutory language has been construed broadly. The ruling was a summary reversal, and dissenters protested that the issue deserved full briefing and argument.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices (Brennan and Stewart, with Justice Marshall joining both) dissented, arguing Tennessee courts had not clearly applied the statute to cunnilingus and that relying on other states and general statements undermined fair warning and due process.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?