## Facts

- Harold Locke was charged under T.C.A. § 39-707 with committing a “crime against nature” against Minnie R. Rogers.
- The State alleged Locke entered Rogers’s apartment late at night on the pretext of using the telephone, produced a butcher knife, and forced her to submit to oral-genital contact.
- Rogers testified Locke compelled her onto a bed, pulled her legs apart, and “started licking” her “private parts,” repeating the act a second time.
- A jury convicted Locke and set punishment at five to seven years’ imprisonment.
- Locke appealed, contesting (1) whether the proof sufficiently established the specific act and (2) whether the act proved was covered by the statute.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s testimony was sufficiently definite to establish that Locke committed cunnilingus.
2. Whether cunnilingus is punishable as a “crime against nature” under T.C.A. § 39-707.

## Decision

- The court held the victim’s testimony, in context, was sufficient to establish cunnilingus.
- The court held cunnilingus falls within the statutory term “crime against nature” in T.C.A. § 39-707.
- The conviction and sentence were affirmed.
- The court declined to address constitutionality as applied to private consensual conduct because the case involved force.

## Legal Principles

- Testimony describing a sexual act may be legally sufficient when its meaning can be reasonably inferred from the words used and surrounding circumstances.
- Under T.C.A. § 39-707, “crime against nature” includes “all unnatural copulation,” not limited to traditional common-law sodomy.
- Tennessee precedent treating fellatio as a “crime against nature,” together with a broad construction of the statutory term, supports inclusion of cunnilingus within the statute.
- Courts may reserve constitutional questions when they are unnecessary to resolve the case on the facts presented.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Locke’s conviction, concluding that the victim’s descriptions adequately proved cunnilingus and that cunnilingus is encompassed by Tennessee’s “crime against nature” statute, while expressly leaving unresolved any constitutional issues concerning consensual private conduct.


Locke v. State, 501 S.W.2d 826 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1973)