In re N. J. W.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the phrase “oral contact or oral penetration of the female genitalia or oral contact of the male genitalia” contained within definition of sodomy did not create alternative means of committing aggravated criminal sodomy
• concluding that the phrase “oral contact or oral penetration of the female genitalia or oral contact of the male genitalia” contained within definition of sodomy did not create alternative means of committing aggravated criminal sodomy
• explaining that subsection paragraphs separated by semi-colons create alternative means of committing sodomy while modifying language within a subsection paragraph presents \various factual circumstances that would prove the crime\
• sending answer back to jury rather than reading answer in defendant's presence not a constitutional violation
• rejecting a similar argument regarding the anal penetration required under K.S.A. 21-3501[2] for aggravated criminal sodomy being perpetrated by [1] a body part or [2] an object
• approving of procedure outlined in Coyote for answering written question from jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).