California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Carbajal, 114 Cal.App.4th 978, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 206 (Cal. App. 2003):
As did our colleagues in People v. Massicot, we note the remarkable absence of case law interpreting the language of Penal Code section 314, subdivision 1. (People v. Massicot, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 926, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 705.) In that case, the court had to determine whether a defendant who concealed his genitals but publicly exposed other parts of his body, i.e., his bare shoulders, buttocks, and thighs, could be convicted of indecent exposure. The court reversed the conviction, concluding the word "person," as used in the statute, means an "entirely unclothed body, including by necessity the bare genitals...." (Id. at pp. 924, 932, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 705.) In reaching this conclusion, the court turned to the common law offense of indecent exposure which, it determined, "require[d] display of the genitals." (Id. at p. 928, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 705.)
[114 Cal.App.4th 983]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.