Indecent Exposure
Indecent exposure is a criminal offense under Minnesota law. Depending on the circumstances, this crime may be charged as a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony. The potential consequences upon a conviction can range from probation, to a maximum sentence of up to five years imprisonment. Generally speaking, most indecent exposure prosecutions involve misdemeanor-level conduct.
THE STATUTE
The applicable statute for the crime of indecent exposure is located at Minnesota Statutes Section 617.23. The following acts constitute a misdemeanor-level indecent exposure offense:
- When a person willfully and lewdly exposes their body or their private parts;
- When a person procures another person to expose their private parts; or
- When a person engages in any open or gross lewdness or lascivious behavior, or any public indecency other than the behavior specified above.
A charge may be elevated to a gross misdemeanor if it occurs in the presence of a minor under the age of 16. Additionally, a charge may be elevated to a gross misdemeanor if the person has previously been convicted of an indecent exposure offense or a criminal sexual conduct offense. A charge may be elevated to a felony if the person engages in indecent exposure in the presence of a minor under the age of 16 and the person has previously been convicted for that same offense. Additionally, a person may be charged with a felony if the person willfully and lewdly exposes their body or their private parts while confining or restricting the movements of another person.
INDECENT EXPOSURE DEFENSE
At Lundgren & Johnson, PSC, we take your defense seriously. There are a number of defenses to the crime of indecent exposure, and we know how to employ these defenses to maximize your chances of success in defending against an indecent exposure charge.
In 1947, in the case of State v. Peery, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that in order to prevail in a prosecution for indecent exposure, the state must show that the charged conduct “was committed with the deliberate intent of being indecent or lewd.” This “deliberate intent” standard persists to this day, and has routinely been affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court as the governing standard in indecent exposure cases. Additionally, the court in Peery went on to state the following:
To establish intent where the act does not occur in a public place or otherwise where it is certain to be observed, some evidence further than the act itself must be presented. Ordinarily, intent is established by evidence of motions, signals, sounds, or other actions by the accused designed to attract attention to his exposed condition, or by his display in a place so public and open that it must be reasonably presumed that it was intended to be witnessed.
From this holding, the courts have required the state to show that a person has an intent to be observed by others. In other words, a person cannot be found guilty merely by being in a state of nudity or undress in a public place if there is not evidence that the person intended to be observed.
In State v. Prince, for example, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the defendants conviction for indecent exposure where the evidence showed that the defendant stood completely naked in the doorway of his home and attracted the attention of three passing high school girls by saying, “Hi, girls.” In that case, the court had no reservation in finding that the defendant had the deliberate intent of being indecent or lewd.
The contrary was true in the Peery case. There, a male college student was alleged to have stood nude in his apartment, visible from the public walk beyond. The defendant was witnessed by several young women, however, there was no evidence that the defendant signaled or called to the women, or otherwise endeavored to direct their attention to him. In his defense, the defendant testified that he returned to his room in the dormitory about 5 p.m. each evening, that it was his custom then to change his work clothing, take a shower in the basement of the dormitory, return to his room, and dress for his evening meal and classes. He denied that he had intentionally exposed himself. In the Peery case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding that defendant willfully and intentionally indecently exposed himself.
LUNDGREN & JOHNSON IS YOUR CHOICE
There are myriad other defenses to a charge of indecent exposure. What we have provided here is merely a glimpse into the complexity of the laws surrounding the crime of indecent exposure. The attorneys at Lundgren & Johnson, PSC are here for you. We know how to defend these cases from the pretrial stage through trial. If you have been charged with indecent exposure in any of Minnesota’s 87 counties, we are here ready and equipped to begin the work of defending you. Contact us today for a free consultation about your case. At our firm, we work hard for you.