People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476 (1980)

A state law criminalizing consensual sodomy between adults in private violates the constitutional right to privacy and equal protection.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that Penal Law § 130.38, which criminalized consensual sodomy, was unconstitutional. The defendants were convicted under this statute for engaging in deviate sexual intercourse. The Court reasoned that the statute infringed upon the right to privacy by regulating private, consensual sexual conduct between adults. Furthermore, it violated the equal protection clause because it discriminated between married and unmarried individuals, criminalizing the same conduct for the latter while permitting it for the former without any rational basis.

Facts

Defendant Onofre admitted to committing acts of deviate sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old male in his home.

Defendants Peoples and Goss were convicted after evidence showed they engaged in oral sodomy in a parked car.

Defendant Sweat was convicted after evidence showed she committed a similar act with a male in a parked truck in a residential area.

Procedural History

In Onondaga County Court, Onofre’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on constitutional grounds was denied, leading to his conviction.

In Buffalo City Court, motions to dismiss by Peoples, Goss, and Sweat, arguing the statute’s unconstitutionality, were also denied, resulting in their convictions.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed Onofre’s conviction, declaring the statute unconstitutional, while the Erie County Court affirmed the convictions of Peoples, Goss, and Sweat.

The cases were consolidated before the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Penal Law § 130.38, criminalizing consensual sodomy, violates the constitutional right to privacy of adults engaging in such conduct in private?

2. Whether Penal Law § 130.38 violates the equal protection clause by discriminating between married and unmarried persons without a rational basis?

Holding

1. Yes, because the statute infringes on the right of independence in making important personal decisions and engaging in conduct accordingly, absent a valid basis for state intrusion.

2. Yes, because the statute discriminates between married and unmarried persons without any rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court grounded its decision on the right to privacy, which encompasses the freedom of conduct and personal decision-making. Citing Stanley v. Georgia, the Court highlighted the right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters fundamentally affecting a person.

The Court distinguished the case from People v. Shepard, which upheld the prohibition of marijuana possession, because there was no evidence presented to suggest that consensual sodomy was harmful to the participants or society.

The Court emphasized that the right to privacy protects individual decisions about sexual intimacy by unmarried persons and the satisfaction of sexual desires in a cloistered setting. The People failed to demonstrate how banning consensual sodomy promotes public morality or protects the institution of marriage. The court noted, “Personal feelings of distaste for the conduct sought to be proscribed by section 130.38 of the Penal Law and even disapproval by a majority of the populace…may not substitute for the required demonstration of a valid basis for intrusion by the State in an area of important personal decision protected under the right of privacy drawn from the United States Constitution.”

Regarding equal protection, the Court found no rational basis for the law’s discrimination between married and unmarried individuals. Citing Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court reiterated that differential treatment must be rationally explained. The prosecution’s justifications—protecting marriage and the rights of married persons—lacked any demonstrable connection to the statute’s proscription of consensual sodomy. The Court stated, “no showing has been made as to how, or even that, the statute banning consensual sodomy between persons not married to each other preserves or fosters marriage.”