State v. BunchState v. Bunch
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Horowitz
Dеfendant-appellant was charged on two counts of an amended information with taking inde
Early in June, 1967, the child’s mother moved her son and five daughters, including Cynthia, from Seattle to Ca-mano Island, in Island County, Washington, wherе she took residence with the defendant and his two young sons. The two adults and eight children lived in a large tent and camper on defendant’s prоperty which was unimproved, partially wooded and fairly remote. The court found that in July or August, 1967, defendant and Cynthia were at the horse corral on his property, a short distance from the area where the tеnt and camper were located; “that at said place and time the defendant dropped his trousers and shorts to his ankles and while in this stаte, held Cynthia ... to his body, all of which she saw and was able to understand;” that thеre were other instances of appellant taking off or dropping his pants and shorts exposing himself to Cynthia during said months.
The state must provе as a constituent element of the crime charged that there was an actual physical exposure of the defendant’s privatе parts seen by the child involved.
1
See
State v. Jaime,
4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 530, 236 A.2d 474 (1967);
State v. Buffano,
5 N.J. Super. 255, 68 A.2d 765
As an appellate court, however, we cannot weigh the evidence оr reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. We may determine only whethеr there is substantial evidence to support the court’s findings assigned as error. State v. Hoffman, 64 Wn.2d 445, 392 P.2d 237 (1964). Cynthia testified inter alia:
A And he [defendant] took his pants down and he grabbed me and squeezed me.
Q Did he take both his pants off?
A Yes.
Q Did he take them all the way off?
A No, just pulled them down.
Q How far?
A To his ankles.
She testified similarly on cross-examination. Such testimony, although uncorroborated, was sufficient. State v. Galbreath, 69 Wn.2d 664, 419 P.2d 800 (1966). She also testified that she told her friends and her mother about the incidents after their occurrence, and, still later, told her aunt, and others, as well.
The court’s oral opinion expressly noted the rule that the defendant’s guilt must be proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge personally prepared the findings of fact and conclusions of law. There is no showing that in doing so, he fаiled to apply the requisite standard of proof required in criminal сases. The fact that the child was not asked specifically whether she saw the exposure is not necessarily fatal. The fact that the child saw the exposure could be established by reasonable inferences from the direct testimony of what occurred and from supрorting circumstantial evidence.
State v. Bennett,
6 Wn.2d 208, 107
In criminal cases, as well as in civil cases, findings of fact by the trial court are necessary
(State v. Marchand,
62 Wn.2d 767, 384 P.2d 865 (1963)) and when supported by substantial evidence are binding upon this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Utter and Williams, JJ., concur.
Petition for rehearing denied April 22, 1970.
Notes
It is unnecessary tо determine whether the statutory phrase “indecent or obscene exposure of his person” includes perception otherwise than by sight. ’ ’