2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 452 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1964
The information in this case charged the defendant with the crime of indecent exposure in violation of § 53-220 of the General Statutes.
The sole assignment of error pursued on this appeal is whether upon all the evidence the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Indecent exposure is the intentional or negligent indecent exposure of the private parts of the person to the public view. . . . Indecent exposure of person is a criminal offense at common law, and also by virtue of statutory provision in many jurisdictions.” 2 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 784; 67 C.J.S., Obscenity, § 5; note, 93 A.L.R. 996. “No particular definition is given, by the statute, of what constitutes this crime. . . . The common sense of the community, as well as the sense of decency, propriety and morality, which most people entertain, is sufficient to apply the statute to each particular case, and point out what particular conduct is rendered criminal by it.” State v. Millard, 18 Vt. 574, 577; People v. Kratz, 230 Mich. 334, 336. “A close analysis of the cases on the question of indecent exposure indicates that underlying every decision, whether at common law or under the statutes, the conviction of the accused is based on the presence of one of two factors: either (1) the defendant’s conduct was lewd and obscene and made with an impure motive, or (2) the conduct was such as, although innocent of purpose, was intentionally done and either offensive to those who saw it, or was or could be visible to the public and was of such a nature as offended the community sense of
The main argument of the defendant is that the state failed to prove that he “wantonly” exposed his genitals, as “wantonly” was defined in State v. Morrison, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 443, 444. “ ‘Wantonness in respect to human conduct is doing a thing recklessly, without regard to . . . the rights of others.’ ” State v. Goetz, 83 Conn. 437, 441. “A wanton act is one done ‘in reckless disregard of the rights of others ... evincing a reckless indifference to [the] . . . rights of another.’ It is ‘more than negligence, more than gross negligence. It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights . . . of others or of the consequences of the action,’
In the case before us, the trial judge properly could have inferred from the testimony that the defendant’s conduct — the defendant having acted in the same way on at least six previous occasions — evinced recklessness on his part. Messina v. State, supra, 607; Davison v. State, 281 P.2d 196, 197 (Okla. Crim.). Intent may be inferred from recklessness. 67 C.J.S. 26, Obscenity, § 5.
We find no merit to the contention raised by the defendant that the character of his act lacked wantonness because the complaining witness “directed her attention to [his] apartment.” If we assume the exposure to have been made, the fact that she directed her attention to his apartment would not take away or affect its criminal character. The offense charged is not against the woman merely; it is against the state; and in some cases it has been held that the consent of the observer would not affect its criminal character. State v. Martin, 125 Iowa 715, 719; People v. Bixby, 67 Barb. 221, 222 (N.Y.).
The state made out a prima facie case against the defendant. The trial court was entitled to draw an unfavorable inference from the failure of the defendant to make any explanation or denial. After a careful examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that the guilt of the defendant was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is no error.
In this opinion Pruyn and Levine, Js., concurred.
"Sec. 53-220. indecent exposure. Any person who, wantonly and indecently, exposes Ms person shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both.”