State v. Crenshaw

Hawaii Supreme Court

State v. Crenshaw

597 P.2d 13, 61 Haw. 68, 1979 Haw. LEXIS 128

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1979

Docket5791, 5792

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 597 P.2d 13 (State v. Crenshaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Crenshaw, 597 P.2d 13, 61 Haw. 68, 1979 Haw. LEXIS 128 (haw 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellants were convicted under the provisions of HRS § 712-1217 which provides:

“A person commits the offense of open lewdness if in a public place he does any lewd act which is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed.”

Both appellants were arrested while sunbathing on Diamond Head Beach. They were then wearing only bikini bottoms. There is, however, nothing in the record nor in the circumstances to indicate that they were engaged in any form *69 of exhibitionism at the time. That particular section of the beach was relatively secluded, and the scantiest of beach attire appears to be the norm rather than the exception in such areas.

James T. Countiss, Deputy Public Defender for Defendants-Appellants. Roy Chang, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for PlaintiffAppellee.

The issue is whether their conduct constituted a “lewd act” within the meaning of the statute. In State v. Bull, et al., No. 5950, decided this day, we held that the exposure of one’s private parts to public view constituted a “lewd act” within the meaning of the statute. Female breasts, however, are not genitalia or “private parts,” State v. Jones, 7 N.C.App. 166, 171 S.E.2d 468 (1970), and therefore the exposure of the female breast, under the circumstances of this case, cannot be said to be a “lewd act” within the proscription of HRS § 712-1217. Whether such exposure per se ought to be proscribed must necessarily be addressed to the wisdom of the legislature. Such conduct might have constituted the offense of indecent exposure as defined by the former common nuisance statute [then HRS § 727-1]; however, the statute has been repealed and replaced by other Hawaii Penal Code provisions. State v. Bull, supra.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The appellants were convicted under the provisions of HRS § 712-1217 which provides:

“A person commits the offense of open lewdness if in a public place he does any lewd act which is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed.”

Both appellants were arrested while sunbathing on Diamond Head Beach. They were then wearing only bikini bottoms. There is, however, nothing in the record nor in the circumstances to indicate that they were engaged in any form *69 of exhibitionism at the time. That particular section of the beach was relatively secluded, and the scantiest of beach attire appears to be the norm rather than the exception in such areas.

James T. Countiss, Deputy Public Defender for Defendants-Appellants. Roy Chang, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for PlaintiffAppellee.

The issue is whether their conduct constituted a “lewd act” within the meaning of the statute. In State v. Bull, et al., No. 5950, decided this day, we held that the exposure of one’s private parts to public view constituted a “lewd act” within the meaning of the statute. Female breasts, however, are not genitalia or “private parts,” State v. Jones, 7 N.C.App. 166, 171 S.E.2d 468 (1970), and therefore the exposure of the female breast, under the circumstances of this case, cannot be said to be a “lewd act” within the proscription of HRS § 712-1217. Whether such exposure per se ought to be proscribed must necessarily be addressed to the wisdom of the legislature. Such conduct might have constituted the offense of indecent exposure as defined by the former common nuisance statute [then HRS § 727-1]; however, the statute has been repealed and replaced by other Hawaii Penal Code provisions. State v. Bull, supra.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 P.2d 13, 61 Haw. 68, 1979 Haw. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crenshaw-haw-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack