737 S.E.2d 919
Va. Ct. App.2013Background
- Barnes appeals his convictions for indecent exposure and sexual display"; the incidents occurred in Newport News jail first floor lockup where he was an inmate,”
- Shamieka Owens, a pretrial services worker, observed Barnes masturbating at the front of his cell bars while eight other inmates were nearby,
- Trial court denied defense motion to strike for lack of a public place and instructed that a public place is where others are present,
- Court held the jail area could be a public place given staff, inmates, and authorized visitors could observe, and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy,
- Court affirmed the convictions based on the public-place interpretation of the statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the acts occurred in a public place under the statutes | Barnes argues no public place since jail is his home | Commonwealth contends first floor lockup was a public area open to others | Yes; the place was public for statutory purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carr, 28 M.J. 661 (N-M C.M.R 1989) (open and notorious standard for public exposure)
- Michigan v. Neal, 702 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (public place depends on likelihood of public observation)
- New York v. McNamara, 585 N.E.2d 788 (N.Y. 1991) (place public if likely observed by a member of the public)
- Messina v. State, 130 A.2d 578 (Md. 1957) (public place if exposure could be seen by casual observers)
- Louisiana v. Narcisse, 833 So.2d 1186 (La. Ct. App. 2002) (public place includes places observable by visitors/staff)
- Michigan Williams, 603 N.W.2d 300 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (focus on possibility of unsuspecting public exposure)
- Arkansas v. Black, 545 S.W.2d 617 (Ark. 1977) (public place based on potential observation by others)
- Crislip v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 66 (Va. App. 2001) (interpretation of public under Virginia context)