2019 COA 22
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile D.C., committed to the Division of Youth Corrections (DYC), exposed one testicle to fellow resident E.L. during a DYC science class.
- E.L. reported the incident; prosecution charged public indecency under § 18-7-301(1), C.R.S. 2018 (alternative ways: in a public place or where members of the public may reasonably be expected to view).
- Trial evidence: 9–10 other students and a teacher were in the classroom; DYC staff moved in and out of classrooms; family members sometimes visit for conferences.
- Juvenile court adjudicated D.C. delinquent for public indecency; D.C. appealed claiming insufficient evidence that the classroom was a “public place” or that those present were “members of the public.”
- Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that the exposure occurred in a place where members of the public could reasonably be expected to view it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support public indecency because exposure occurred in a place where conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public | Classroom was a public place or, alternatively, a place where members of the public (students, teachers, staff, visitors) could reasonably view the conduct | Classroom occupants (residents, staff, teachers) are not "members of the public" merely because of assignment/employment; therefore exposure was not in a place viewable by the public | Affirmed: sufficient evidence that exposure occurred where members of the public may reasonably be expected to view it; conviction stands |
| Whether In re May (N.C.) requires excluding residents/staff from "members of the public" analysis | N/A (prosecution distinguished May) | Reliance on May to argue facility witnesses with strong ties do not render place "public" | May is distinguishable; Colorado statute and precedent allow staff/residents (and potential visitors) to be "members of the public" for this statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Steerman, 735 P.2d 876 (Colo. 1987) (statutory alternative can support conviction when elements pleaded in the disjunctive)
- People v. Prendergast, 87 P.3d 175 (Colo. App. 2003) (sufficiency review where jury instruction presented disjunctive alternatives)
- People v. Dunaway, 88 P.3d 619 (Colo. 2004) (when statute lists alternatives in the disjunctive, proof of one is sufficient)
- People v. Viduya, 703 P.2d 1281 (Colo. 1985) (proper to instruct jury in the disjunctive where statute describes alternate ways to commit an offense)
- People v. Hoskay, 87 P.3d 194 (Colo. App. 2003) (conviction upheld where sexual conduct occurred in a facility area open to admitted persons and staff)
- In re May, 584 S.E.2d 271 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (distinguished) (holding group-home witnesses with strong ties did not render the premises a "public place")