State v. Prince

Decided April 20, 1973

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1973-04-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“stood completely naked in the doorway of his home and attracted the attention of three passing high school girls by saying, 'Hi, girls.'”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Jama

Relies on State v. Peery

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-04-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2019

7 state decisions

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 Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of indecent exposure. Minn. St. 617.23. His contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

¶2 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, established that defendant stood completely naked in the doorway of.his home and attracted the attention of three passing high school girls by saying, “Hi, girls.” The evidence that defendant endeavored to attract the attention of passers-by while standing nude in plain sight of the passers-by was clearly sufficient, under principles enunciated in State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 28 N. W. 2d 851 (1947), to justify the verdict.

¶3 Affirmed.