State v. Jeffrey, 400 S.W.3d 303

Gene Jeffrey was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual misconduct involving a child under § 566.0831 and two counts of attempted sexual misconduct involving a child.
Evidence showed Jeffrey stood nude in or near his front doorway/window facing the street, visible to girls under 15 years old.
Jeffrey appealed arguing § 566.083 is unconstitutionally overbroad and as applied to him; he also challenged sufficiency of the evidence.
The court held § 566.083 not overbroad as applied, affirmed conviction, and rejected the sufficiency challenges.
The opinion discusses the overbreadth doctrine’s First Amendment scope, and analyzes privacy rights and the sufficiency of evidence for both the completed and attempted offenses.
Statutory reference: § 566.083.1(1) criminalizes knowingly exposing genitals to a child under circumstances likely to affront or alarm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 566.083 overbroad under the First Amendment?	Jeffrey contends the statute punishes protected conduct.	Jeffrey asserts potential chilling effect on protected speech.	No; statute not overbroad as applied.
Does § 566.083 violate the right to privacy as applied?	Jeffrey argues privacy rights are violated by applying the statute.	Privacy rights could be implicated in home activities; overbreadth not applicable, but as-applied challenge considered.	Not violated as applied.
Is there sufficient evidence that Jeffrey knowingly exposed himself and that it would affront or alarm the victims?	State argues repeated nude exposures show knowledge and likely affront/alarm.	Jeffrey claims lack of knowledge that children present or could see him.	Evidence supports knowledge and likelihood of affront/alarm beyond reasonable doubt.
Is there sufficient evidence to convict on the attempted offenses?	Evidence shows substantial steps toward offenses on both dates.	Defendant argues lack of complete offense evidence.	Yes; substantial steps shown for both attempted offenses.

State v. Vaughn, 366 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. banc 2012) (confronts standard of constitutional review for statutes)
State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. banc 2009) (overbreadth standard applied in Missouri context)
Ferber v. New York, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (overbreadth doctrine in First Amendment context)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (limits of overbreadth as exception to typical conduct regulation)
State v. Richard, 298 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. banc 2009) (limits overbreadth doctrine to First Amendment context)
Beine v. State, 162 S.W.3d 483 (Mo. banc 2005) (dicta on overbreadth beyond First Amendment)
Christian v. City of Kansas City, 710 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. App. 1986) ( First Amendment considerations in loitering-like ordinances)