these cases. In the nature of things, no act is indecent per se, and every act must be given the consideration of disimpassioned understanding to determine whether or not it involves the legal notion of decency. Obviously, decisions on sodomy in California is otherwise with indecent exposures. The mere fact that an act is very disgusting to most people does not make it legally indecent. There can be no excuse for a prosecution such as People v. Rola Singh, 93 Cal. App. 32. However, it would be naive to think that this case was based on questions of passion or disgust. It is clear that the artificial creature of legal decency precedes such emotions, and it may be that it has much to do with informing them. The gist of sodomy at the common law was that it was an uncouth act violating the propriety of God. There is no doubt that sodomy or any other act may have such an effect, and there is no doubt that it did not have that effect on People v. Rola Singh, 93 Cal. App. 32. The case is a parochialism. It is right in law, but wrong in the fact of the law. The penal definitions of so-called homosexual acts are vestiges of heresy, witchcraft, and the like: Sodomie est crime de majestie vers le roy celestre. Corone, 12 Coke 36; 77 Eng. Reports 1318; Le Roy v. Sr. Charles Sedley, 1 Sid. 168. Greater flexibility is needed for all phases of the law of decency in modern life, and this flexibility is made possible by the very simplicity of the common law, whose genius is indeed one of the most wonderful creations of man. It is my opinion that the cases noted below establish the common law notion of decency in California.

MARGINALIA

Elwin Volk, LL.B.

People v. John Erwin, 4 Cal. App. 394. "Every person of ordinary intelligence understands what the crime against nature with a human being is." People v. Rola Singh, 93 Cal. App. 32. The pathic was an accomplice near the age of majority. Naturally, the act was not done openly.

People v. Robbins, 171 Cal. 466. This case was a prosecution for sodomy, where the pathic was a sixteen-year-old accomplice and the defendant a middleaged man. It illustrates the familiar principle that consent is not a defense in sodomy, although the decision of the court turned on corroboration. It is analogous to the case of People v. Singh.

In re Correa for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 36 Cal. App. 512. Prosecution for lewd exposure of person. The complaint charged that the defendant did wilfully and unlawfully expose his persons" etc. The court held that the complaint failed to charge an offense, adding, "It was not alleged that the acts described were done lewdly."

Ex parte Hutchings. 2 Cal. Unrep. 822. The defendant was convicted of the offense of inducing a female to lewdly expose herself.

page 15