State v. Watts, 988 N.W.2d 254

Background

While jailed at Burleigh Morton Detention Center, Dondarro Watts stepped out of a shower, exposed and masturbated in view of a detention officer; a security camera recorded the incident.
Watts was charged with indecent exposure (masturbation in a public place with intent to arouse) under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.1(1)(a).
At trial the detention officer testified she could see across the cell except the shower area (which had privacy glass and steam); she testified Watts emerged holding and stroking his penis.
On cross-examination the officer answered “No” to whether the cell was a public place; the State objected, the court sustained the objection, but the response was not stricken.
A jury found Watts guilty on July 1, 2022; the court sentenced him to 180 days and ordered sexual-offender registration. Watts appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Evidentiary ruling: officer asked whether cell was a public place	State contended the question invaded the jury’s role; objection valid	Watts argued lay opinion on "public place" was admissible under Rules 701/704	Court: Sustaining the objection was a misapplication of Rule 704 (abuse of discretion), but error was harmless because the officer’s answer remained before the jury
Sufficiency of evidence to convict of indecent exposure	State relied on officer testimony and video showing Watts expose and masturbate after leaving shower	Watts argued evidence did not establish act occurred in a "public place" or show requisite intent	Court: Evidence (testimony, cell description, video) was sufficient for a rational jury to convict
Jury instruction defining "public place"	State proposed defining it as a place where actor might reasonably expect to be seen; court instructed that "public place" is undefined in the statute and is a question of fact	Watts argued the jury should get the statutory/plain-meaning instruction and objected to State’s proposed definition	Court: Watts failed to object to the final instruction; under obvious-error review the court did not deviate from law and no plain error was shown
Sexual-offender registration requirement	State: conviction for indecent exposure triggers mandatory registration unless statutory exceptions apply	Watts sought deviation under statutory exceptions	Court: Court followed statutory analysis, found no basis to deviate, and did not abuse discretion in ordering registration

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dargbeh, 969 N.W.2d 144 (ND) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Pulkrabek, 975 N.W.2d 572 (ND) (forfeiture of challenge to witness qualifications)
U.S. v. Zaccaria, 240 F.3d 75 (1st Cir.) (testimony not stricken remains before jury and may be considered)
Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes, 574 N.W.2d 812 (N.D.) (public place defined as location where actor might reasonably expect to be seen)
State v. Doll, 812 N.W.2d 381 (N.D.) (standard for sufficiency review after jury verdict)
State v. Gray, 893 N.W.2d 484 (N.D.) (conviction rests on insufficient evidence only when no rational factfinder could find guilt)
State v. Jacob, 724 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.) (preservation rule and obvious-error standard for jury instructions)
State v. Azure, 899 N.W.2d 294 (N.D.) (harmless error analysis in criminal cases)
State v. Acker, 871 N.W.2d 603 (N.D.) (harmless error defined as non-prejudicial error)
State v. Glaser, 858 N.W.2d 920 (N.D.) ("shall" creates mandatory duty in registration statute)
Oien v. Oien, 706 N.W.2d 81 (N.D.) (abuse-of-discretion review for permissive decisions)