Skip to main content

State v. Hoyle

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the element of the felony indecent exposure statute requiring that the exposure be 'in the presence of' another requires that the victim could have seen the exposure had he or she looked; whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant's exposure was 'in the presence of' the child.
Case Number
  • 239A18
Filed
Author
  • Justice Paul Newby
Type
  • Published

Files

These files may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. If you are having trouble accessing these files, you may request an accessible format.

Summary

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the element of the felony indecent exposure statute requiring that the exposure be 'in the presence of' another requires that the victim could have seen the exposure had he or she looked; whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant's exposure was 'in the presence of' the child.

Share this page