How have courts interpreted the definition of open and gross lewdness under the California Open and Gross lewdness Act?

Noting that the language of the statute did not require a witness who actually observed the exposure, the court reasoned that "if the offense does in fact include such an element, it must be contained within the words `open or indecent exposure.'" (People v. Vronko, supra, 579 N.W.2d at p. 141.) Examining the issue in the light of the common law, the court upheld the defendant's conviction concluding, "there is no requirement that the defendant's exposure actually be witnessed by another person in order to constitute `open or indecent exposure,' as long as the exposure occurred in a public place under circumstances in which another person might reasonably have been expected to observe it." (579 N.W.2d at p. 142.)

Similarly, the court in Commonwealth v. Poillucci (1999) 46 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 705 N.E.2d 626 upheld the defendant's conviction for open and gross lewdness based on the 10-year-old witness's "testimony the defendant was `pulling up and down' on a `skin-colored belt.'" (705 N.E.2d at p. 629.) The court found the testimony supported "a rational inference that the defendant was masturbating in front of [the child] and exposing himself.

[114 Cal.App.4th 985]