State v. Rose

Decided July 15, 1862

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1862-07-15

<p>Indictments. — An indictment which charges the defendant with an indecent exposure of his person on the public highway, but omits to charge that the act was open and notorious, although not good under sec. 8, art. 8, of the Act of Crimes and Punishments, (B. C. 1855, p. 624,) is yet good as an indictment for a misdemeanor at common law.</p> <p>Crimes — Misdemeanors.—Whatever act openly outrages decency and is injurious to public morals, is a misdemeanor at common law, and is indictable as such.</p>

Relies on State v. Appling

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Exposure Of Person”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1912

5 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 →

Bat, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The indictment in this case does not allege, in the words of the statute, that the act of public indecency was open and notorious, and is therefore not good under the statute; but the offence charged is indictable at common law, for whatever outrages decency and is injurious to public morals is a misdemeanor at common law and punishable as such. (Rex v. Cruden, 2 Camp. 69; 1 Russ. Crimes, 46; 4 Black. Com. 41; 2 Yerg. 589; 25 Mo. 315.)

¶3The court below, therefore, erred in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment, for which reason its judgment will be reversed and the case remanded ;

the other judges concurring.