State v. JetterState v. Jetter
On February 14, 1990, defendant-appellee, Kimberly Jetter, was arrested and charged with public indecency in violation of
In its sole assignment of error, the state asserts that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that the term “private parts,” as found in
“(A) No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under circumstances in which his or her conduct is likely to be viewed by and affront others, not members of his or her household:
“(1) Expose his or her private parts, or engage in masturbation[.]”
Although R.C. Chapter 2907 fails to provide a specific definition for “private parts,”
1
we are convinced that, in its commonly understood meaning, the term does not include the female breast. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court properly dismissed the amended complaint on its face because the material allegations contained within it did not, as a matter of law, state a violation of Ohio law with respect to the offense codified in
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. It is worth noting that the Ohio jury instruction for