Flowers v. District of Columbia, 343 A.3d 46

Shortly after midnight on July 2, 2022, Laura Okpala exited a rideshare at her condominium at 1825 T Street NW and saw Michael Flowers with his lower half exposed on the building walkway; he followed her and made no attempt to cover himself.
Flowers forced entry into the building, confronted Okpala in the lobby, a scuffle occurred, and a phone (believed to be Flowers’s) fell; Okpala retrieved the phone, went outside to call police, and Flowers later approached and allegedly assaulted her.
Flowers was charged under D.C. Code § 22-1312 (lewd/indecent/obscene exposure), convicted after a bench trial, obtained partial § 23-110 relief and a retrial was set.
The government moved to continue the retrial because Okpala had a work-related absence; the court granted the continuance and reset trial.
At retrial the government presented Okpala and an MPD officer; Flowers argued § 22-1312 applies only on public property and alternatively asserted a necessity defense to a brief exposure while recovering his phone.
The trial court convicted Flowers again; on appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals held § 22-1312 is not limited to public property and that any continuance error was harmless (Carper precedent), affirming the conviction.

Issue	Flowers' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Scope of § 22‑1312: whether “in public” requires public property	“In public” means on public property only; statute doesn’t reach private property	“In public” means "in open view/before the people at large," not limited to public property	§ 22‑1312 is not limited to public property; applies to private locations open to public view
Sufficiency of evidence	Insufficient because exposure occurred on private condominium walkway	Walkway exposure was “in public” (open view) and occurred before phone incident	Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction based on exposure on the walkway
Necessity defense	Brief exposure was excused as necessary to retrieve phone taken during altercation	Trial court found first exposure occurred before phone loss; necessity not implicated	Court did not reach necessity on the merits; earlier exposure was dispositive
Continuance of retrial	Granting continuance was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced Flowers	Grant enabled the victim to testify; any error is harmless per Carper	Even assuming error, it was harmless; conviction affirmed (Carper controls on prejudice)

Bolz v. District of Columbia, 149 A.3d 1130 (D.C. 2016) (discusses legislative history and meaning of “in public” for § 22‑1312)
Carper v. District of Columbia, 332 A.3d 1110 (D.C. 2025) (holds a continuance that allows a previously unavailable witness to testify does not automatically establish prejudice warranting reversal)
Parnigoni v. District of Columbia, 933 A.2d 823 (D.C. 2007) (articulates that exposure is indecent when open to observation by others)
Campbell v. United States, 163 A.3d 790 (D.C. 2017) (construed statutory place‑based wording in a different context; court rejects Flowers’ reliance on it)
Bedney v. United States, 684 A.2d 759 (D.C. 1996) (continuance standards require a showing that testimony is reasonably necessary)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless‑error framework cited regarding whether an error substantially swayed the outcome)