State v. Miller
405 P.3d 860
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Victim (12) delivered newspapers and rang/knocked at Miller’s front door per his prior request to place the paper on the porch.
- Victim testified Miller opened the door and stepped onto the porch wearing a shirt but no pants or underwear, partially exposing his genitals; Victim was startled and reported the incident.
- Miller denied the incident in a police interview and at trial claimed he stayed behind the door and only extended his arm to take the paper; the trial court found his testimony not credible.
- Miller was charged with and convicted of lewdness involving a child under Utah Code § 76-9-702.5(1) (class A misdemeanor).
- Trial court denied motions to dismiss; Miller was sentenced to 364 days with 274 days suspended. He appealed arguing insufficient evidence that the conduct occurred in a public place or that he should have known it would cause affront or alarm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exposure occurred in a "public place" or, alternatively, whether circumstances were such that the defendant should have known exposure in a private place would likely cause affront or alarm | State argued evidence showed exposure to a child on the front porch and, alternatively, circumstances supported that Miller should have known it would cause affront or alarm | Miller argued his porch was private and he did not step outside or expose himself so he could not have known his undress would cause affront or alarm | Court assumed porch was private but affirmed conviction under the private-place provision because circumstances showed Miller should have known his conduct would likely cause affront or alarm |
| Whether proof of sexual intent or erection is required for conviction under the private-place provision | State relied on statutory alternative that requires only that the actor should know exposure will likely cause affront or alarm, not proof of sexual intent | Miller argued lack of erection and no evidence of intent to arouse meant statutory standard not met | Court held sexual intent or erection not required for conviction under § 76-9-702.5(1)(b)(ii)(A); only that a person should have known exposure would likely cause affront or alarm |
| Sufficiency of evidence given credibility findings | State relied on Victim’s credible testimony and Miller’s inconsistent statements and admissions about avoiding nudity in front of visitors | Miller claimed he remained behind the door and Victim never actually saw him naked | Court found Victim credible, Miller’s testimony incredible, and that sufficient competent evidence supported the conviction |
| Whether nudity on a front porch is the kind of nudity that ordinarily would not cause alarm | State argued adult nudity is unexpected on a front porch and would alarm a child | Miller suggested context (no erection, no sexual intent) made exposure less alarming | Court agreed that nudity on a front porch is not expected and would likely cause affront or alarm to a child; affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Larsen, 999 P.2d 1252 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in bench trials)
- State v. Harper, 761 P.2d 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (principles on presenting facts in appellate review)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (conflicting evidence presented only as necessary on appeal)
- State v. Boyd, 25 P.3d 985 (Utah 2001) (reversal only when insufficient competent evidence for each element)
- Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 308 S.W.3d 704 (Ky. 2010) (adult nudity in expected private contexts, like locker rooms, is less likely to cause affront)
- State v. Jeffrey, 400 S.W.3d 303 (Mo. 2013) (standing naked in a front doorway is an unexpected nudity context likely to cause affront or alarm)