Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

268 N.C. 711

151 S.E.2d 566

State v. King

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 14, 1966

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1966-12-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““a place which in point of fact is public as distinguished from private, but not necessarily a place devoted solely to the uses of the public, a place that is visited by many persons and to which the neighboring public may have resort, a place which is accessible to the public and visited by many persons.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Fusco, 244 N.C. App. 326 - State v. Pugh

Relies on State v. Fenner · State v. Lowery · People v. Lane

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-12-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2018

23 state decisions

60196619701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 “ ‘Public place’ means a place which in point of fact is public as distinguished from private, but not necessarily a place devoted solely to the uses of the public, a place that is visited by many persons and to which the neighboring public may have resort, a place which is accessible to the public and visited by many persons. Ellis v. Archer, 161 N.W. 192; People v. Lane, 32 N.Y.S. 2d 61. A mercantile establishment and the premises thereof is a public place during business hours when customers are coming and going.” S. v. Fenner, 263 N.C. 694, 140 S.E. 2d 349.

¶2 We said in the recent case of S. v. Lowery, 268 N.C. 162, 150 S.E. 2d 23: “Intentional exposure of private parts while sitting in *712 an automobile on a public street in such manner that they could be seen by members of the passing public using the street and were seen by a passerby constitutes common law offense of indecent exposure.”

¶3 “It is not essential to the- crime of indecent exposure that someone shall have seen the exposure provided it was intentionally made in a public place and persons were present who could have seen if they had looked.” 33 Am. Jur. 19.

¶4 “The offense does not depend upon the number of people present and an intentional act of lewd exposure offensive to one or more persons is sufficient.” 67 C.J.S. 26.

¶5 It appears from the above that all the elements necessary to constitute the crime of indecent exposure were shown by the State’s evidence. The jury accepted it as true, and in the trial there was

¶6 No error.

/268/nc/711 · .json · Public domain