| Kentucky V. Wasson |
Article Index for Kentucky |
Website Links For Kentucky |
Information AboutKentucky V. Wasson |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT KENTUCKY V. WASSON | |
| 1992 in law | |
| equal protection cases | |
| history of kentucky | |
| kentucky state case law | |
| united states gay rights cases | |
|
THE LAW AT ISSUE At that time, Kentucky law criminalized consensual sexual relations between people of the same sex, even if conducted in private. Such conduct was a misdemeanor punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $500. Solicitation of same was also a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $250. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Jeffery Wasson was arrested and charged with solicitation of same sex sodomy as the result of an undercover operation conductd by the Lexington Police . The police drove to a selected area and conversed with people to see if they would be solicited for Sex . An undercover officer taped approximately 20 minutes of a conversation with Wasson. Near the end of the conversation Wasson invited the officer to come home with him. When prodded for details, Wasson suggested sexual activities that violated the Kentucky statute prohibiting Homosexual activity. In its recitation of the facts, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that there "was no suggestion that sexual activity would occur anyplace other than in the privacy of Wasson's home. The sexual activity was intended to have been between consenting adults. No money was offered or solicited." The initial trial court, Fayette District Court, dismissed the charges holding that the law was unconstitutional. Upon appeal, the Fayette Circuit Court reached the same conclusion. The Commonwealth appealed that decision. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted a transfer, bypassing the Kentucky Court Of Appeals . KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT DECISION The case was granted transfer from Fayette Circuit Court directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court , bypassing the Kentucky Court Of Appeals . In a 4-3 ruling struck down anti-sodomy laws in effect since 1860 , declaring them unconstitutional in Kentucky law with the declaration that it violated both the right to privacy and the right to equal protection under the law found in the Kentucky Constitution . Justice Charles M. Leibson authored the majority opinion, which noted that "significantly, Kentucky has a rich and compelling tradition of recognizing and protecting individual rights from state intrusion in cases similar in nature, found in the Debates of the Kentucky Constitutional Convention of 1890 and cases from the same era when that Constitution was adopted. . . . Kentucky cases recognized a legally protected right of privacy based on our own constitution and common law tradition long before the United States Supreme Court first took notice of whether there were any rights of privacy inherent in the Federal Bill of Rights." Asserting that "state constitutional jurisprudence in this area is not limited by the constraints inherent in federal due process analysis", the majority opinion held that the law as written and enforced "infringed upon the equal protection guarantees found in the Kentucky Constitution ." . The case was styled ''Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Jeffery Wasson'', 842 S.W.2d 487. The decision was handed down on September 24 , 1992 . The case was among the early ones to strike down same-sex sodomy laws on the grounds that such laws violated the Equal Protection doctrine. Four other states preceded Kentucky in striking down same-sex sodomy laws. eventually reached the same conclusion as Kentucky had in ''Wasson''. At the time, the decision - which was based solely on interpretation of the Kentucky Constitution - was at odds with federal caselaw on the same subject. The United States Supreme Court had previously held in '' Bowers V. Hardwick '', 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that federal constitutional protection of the right of privacy was not implicated in laws penalizing homosexual sodomy. It was not until years after the ''Wasson'' case that the United States Supreme Court revisited the issue and reversed its holding in '' Bowers V. Hardwick ''. EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|