and wiki
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=2728
"Crime against nature" has been defined by North Carolina courts as "sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature," including all "acts of bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified." While this definition is incredibly broad, enough so that it could conceivably include masturbation or sexual positions once thought "unnatural," the CAN law is now only used in cases involving oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) and anal intercourse.
Prior to Lawrence, the CAN law was used to prosecute two male sexual partners as well as male and female partners. Apparently no CAN case has ever been brought against two women in North Carolina, although a woman in Tennessee served two years in prison for consensual CAN with another woman before that state’s sodomy law was declared unconstitutional. Lawrence made clear that law enforcement officers may no longer arrest hetero- or homosexual people for CAN activity in private, but officers are still making CAN arrests for activity occurring in public as well as for solicitation to perform acts of CAN in public or in an unspecified place. Theoretically, arrest and prosecution under CAN laws are also possible at this point in a few additional situations: where one of the participants is a minor or an incapacitated or disabled adult incapable of consent, where prostitution is involved (that is, money or some other material thing of value is exchanged for the CAN act), or where one of the participants is coerced.
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors argue that they continue to enforce and press charges for CAN activity because the laws against prostitution, sex with minors, and the like are not worded broadly enough to include oral and anal sex. While this rationale may seem reasonable at first, the problem is that enforcement of the CAN law penalizes homosexual men more severely than heterosexuals for sexual activity in secluded areas. For example, a heterosexual couple "parking" at night in a deserted area or making love in the woods will most likely be ignored by law enforcement officers. At most, they will be charged with indecent exposure, a misdemeanor. Two men in an identical situation, however, will usually be charged with CAN—a felony. (However, most nonviolent CAN cases today are subject to structured sentencing law, so only a defendant with an unusually bad record would receive an active prison term.)
In order to convict someone of CAN, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an act of penetration occurred (that is, the state must prove that a penis was inserted into someone’s mouth or anus, or that a tongue was inserted into someone’s vagina or anus). Because the few acts of consensual CAN prosecuted in North Carolina have generally occurred in dark areas or behind a closed door (in an adult bookstore, for example), such cases are often difficult for prosecutors to prove, if the defendant insists on a trial.
http://www.ncgala.org/guide/guidecan.htm
http://www.connellydefense.com/PracticeAreas/Sodomy-or-Crime-Against-Nature-FAQ.asp
Currently, the term crime against nature is still used in the statutes of the following American states. However, these laws may be unconstitutional in light of Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
Idaho (I.C. § 18-6605)
Louisiana (R.S. 14:89) (Struck down by Louisiana court in 2005)
Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 272, § 34 (Struck down by Mass. court in 1974)
Michigan (MCL § 750.158)
Mississippi (Miss. Code § 97-29-59)
North Carolina (G.S. § 14-177)(Found unconstitutional as applied but not facially invalid in State v. whiteley, 616 S.E.2d 576 (2005))
Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. § 21-886 (Struck down laws applying to heterosexuals by Okla. court in 1988)
Virginia (Va. Code § 18.2-361)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_nature
= new reply since forum marked as read
