|
|
|
| Indecent Exposure |
|
Shaynathian Rashaud Hicks v. State,
No. F-2005-1058 (Okl.Cr., March 26, 2007) (unpublished): Indecent Exposure: Hicks was convicted in Atoka County of several crimes and most were affirmed in this opinion. However, his conviction for Indecent Exposure was REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS on the basis of insufficient evidence. The Court described the act committed by Hicks as an "inappropriate act of urination." The Court held that the State failed to prove this act was done "lewdly." The Court explained that Indecent Exposure is the lewd exposure of the person or private parts in any public place or place where other persons are present to be offended or annoyed; and the element of lewdness required is "an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager[ness] for sexual indulgence," in conjunction with a prohibited exposure. (citing McKinley v. State, 244 P. 208 (Okl.Cr.1926). Thus, be alert if you have a client who simply urinated in public and gets charged with Indecent Exposure. Simply exposing the genitals in public is not enough to convict under the statute.
|
|
|
|
