 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
State v Perry
S. Ct. Minnesota, 1947
Author:- Sam
Biers
Relevant Facts: Df is 23 year old, veteran of WWII, living in a groundfloor apartment while attending school. The room has two windows, one to the west and the other to the north. A sidewalk is 20 ft from the north window. Several women testified that as they headed home from work, they viewed the df, unclothed, standing in front or near the north window.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the evidence supports a finding that the Df “wilfully and intentionally,” indecently exposed himself in violation of the statute?
Court’s Holding: No
Procedure: Trial Ct. conviction indecent exposure; appeal to vacate and appeal trial ct. order denying motion for new trial on basis of new evidence. Reversed.
Law or Rule(s): Under statute before indecent exposure can be established the evidence must sustain a finding that the conduct was committed with the deliberate intent of being indecent or lewd and that conduct was done wilfully.
Court Rationale: There was no evidence that the df endeavored to attract the attention of passers by with motioning, or calling. There is no evidence that the conduct of the df was wilful or lewd rather than careless or thoughtless. Testimony provided that df customarily removed his clothing prior to bathing. No evidence suggests or indicates the df intentionally exposed himself.
Plaintiff’s Argument: Df was wilfully nude in front of a window, visible to passers-by on the sidewalk outside, in a corner, 1st floor apartment.
Defendant’s Argument: Df was unaware that the shades were not drawn or that he was visible. Df did not act wilfully indecent or lewd.