12 N.E.3d 259
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Coppinger wore see-through white compression shorts in a Target store; employees observed his buttocks and skin through the shorts.
- Witnesses described seeing the outline of his genitals and a semi-erect penis through the shorts.
- Police arrested him outside the store as he pulled on jeans to cover himself; he was charged with open and gross lewdness and accosting a person of the opposite sex.
- He moved to dismiss, arguing G. L. c. 272, § 16, is unconstitutionally vague; the motion was denied.
- At trial, he requested a specific exposure definition; the judge gave a broad common-meaning instruction; the request was denied.
- The jury convicted him of both counts; the appeals court affirmed the judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 16 unconstitutionally vague as applied? | Coppinger argues vagueness should void conviction. | Commonwealth contends statute provides fair notice. | Statute not void for vagueness as applied. |
| Was there sufficient evidence for a required finding of guilt? | Coppinger claims lack of intent/reckless exposure. | Commonwealth shows exposure through see-through shorts and intent. | Rational juror could find exposure and intent beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Did the judge err in the jury instruction on exposure? | Coppinger urged using his express definition of exposure. | Commonwealth argues dictionary/common meaning is sufficient. | Instruction allowed; not prejudicial; lenity inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 389 Mass. 265 (1983) (requires specific notice of forbidden conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Crawford, 430 Mass. 683 (2000) (clarifies vagueness standard for common understanding)
- Commonwealth v. Sefranka, 382 Mass. 108 (1980) (statutory definiteness and reasonable construction)
- Commonwealth v. Quinn, 439 Mass. 492 (2003) (limits vagueness by reasonable construction of terms)
- Commonwealth v. Gallant, 373 Mass. 577 (1977) (vagueness doctrine contemplates practical limits)
- Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 359 Mass. 491 (1971) (common understanding test for statutory terms)
- Commonwealth v. King, 374 Mass. 5 (1977) (define terms by common understanding)
- Commonwealth v. Arthur, 420 Mass. 535 (1995) (defining commonly understood meanings for terms)
- Commonwealth v. Robertson, 467 Mass. 371 (2014) (exposure definitions; common understanding)
- Commonwealth v. Ora, 451 Mass. 125 (2008) (exposure restrictions on expressive conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Carrion, 431 Mass. 44 (2000) (rejects vagueness in custody-exit phrase)