People of Michigan v. Gerald Gordon Rouse, 330379

Defendant and others drank at defendant’s girlfriend’s home; complainant fell asleep on a living-room couch after ingesting alcohol and a large dose of a recreational prescription drug.
The complainant awoke once to find clothing on the left side removed and her tampon missing; she later fell asleep again.
She then awoke a second time to see defendant standing near her face masturbating; she fled to the bathroom shaken.
Other people were in the house or possibly asleep upstairs (ex-boyfriend, girlfriend’s son, minor daughter, and other party attendees).
Defendant was acquitted of third-degree CSC (incapacitated victim) but convicted by a jury of aggravated indecent exposure, MCL 750.335a(2)(b), and sentenced as a fourth habitual offender.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support aggravated indecent exposure	Evidence (complainant’s testimony, girlfriend’s statement that defendant admitted masturbating, presence of others) proves open exposure and fondling of genitals	Trial evidence insufficient: complainant was asleep, defendant lacked indecent intent and did not knowingly expose himself to her	Affirmed — when viewed in prosecution’s favor evidence was sufficient to show open exposure and fondling with a substantial risk others might observe
Whether indecent-exposure requires an intent element (indecent intention toward victim)	Statute does not require intent; conduct and risk to others satisfy elements	Argues statute requires an indecent intention to focus attention on sexual organs (relying on plurality language in prior case)	Court: No separate intent element in MCL 750.335a(2)(b); plurality language is not binding and statute controls

People v Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (review standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
People v Reese, 491 Mich. 127 (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecutor)
People v Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508 (sufficient-evidence due process requirement)
People v Harverson, 291 Mich. App. 171 (due process and sufficiency principles)
People v Neal, 266 Mich. App. 654 (definition of open exposure and substantial risk of offending viewers)
In re Certified Question, 420 Mich. 51 (discussed in relation to open exposure standard)
People v Williams, 256 Mich. App. 576 (substantial risk analysis for potential viewers)
People v Vronko, 228 Mich. App. 649 (statutory construction of Penal Code provisions)
People v Hildabridle, 353 Mich. 562 (plurality discussion of indecent-exposure characterizations)