Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Ala. App. 114

Truett v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided January 18, 1912

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1912-01-18

Heard, before Hon. E. J. Garrison. Flora Truett Avas convicted of indecent exposure of person, and appeals.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The offense [indecent exposure] is complete if the act is intentionally committed at such time and place and in such manner as to offend against public decency, and the intent may be inferred from the recklessness of the act. Van Houten v. State, 46 N.J. Law, 16, 50 Am. Rep. 397 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Luster v. State

Relies on State v. Millard · State v. . Roper · State v. Rose

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1912-01-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 1976

18 state decisions

601912192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

PELHAM, J.

¶1The indictment charges an indecent-exposure of the person in a public place, willfully and intentionally made by the defendant in the presence-of an assembly of divers persons.

¶2The offense charged is indictable and punishable-at common law. 29 Cyc. p. 1316; 1 Wood on Nuisances,, c. 2, § 57.

¶3*116The indictment contains the necessary averments to constitute the common-law offense, and the defendant’s demurrers are not well taken. No averment is necessary that the act was a nuisance, as the act complained of under the circumstances alleged is per se a public nuisance. It is a nuisance and punishable at common law because it is an act malum in se, when committed as alleged in the indictment, affecting the public morals. A public nuisance, because it is violate of the rules of propriety, noxious to moral sensibilities, outrages decency, shocks, and is offensive to those feelings of chastity that people of ordinary respectability entertain, and has a tendency to corrupt the public morals. I Wood on Nuisances, c. 2, §§. 23, 24, 57; Joyce’s Law of Nuisances, c. 2, § 15; Rex. v. Crunden, 2 Campbell, 89.

¶4The offense is complete if the act is intentionally committed at such time and place and in such manner as to offend against public decency, and the intent may be inferred from the recklessness of the act.—Van Houten v. State, 46 N. J. Law, 16, 50 Am. Rep. 397.

¶5It is sufficient at common law that the act be committed in a public place in the presence of more than one person. State v. Rose, 32 Mo. 560; State v. Millard, 18 Vt. 574, 46 Am. Dec. 170; State v. Roper, 18 N. C. 208; Grisham v. State, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 589; Regina v. Orchard, 20 Eng. Law & Eq. 597, 600.

¶6The judgment of conviction and fine imposed was authorized. Code 1907, § 7622.

¶7There is no error shown by the record, and the case will be affirmed.

¶8Affirmed.

/3/alaapp/114 · .json · Public domain