State v. Prince
This text of 206 N.W.2d 660 (State v. Prince) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of indecent exposure. Minn. St. 617.23. His contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, established that defendant stood completely naked in the doorway of.his home and attracted the attention of three passing high school girls by saying, “Hi, girls.” The evidence that defendant endeavored to attract the attention of passers-by while standing nude in plain sight of the passers-by was clearly sufficient, under principles enunciated in State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 28 N. W. 2d 851 (1947), to justify the verdict.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
206 N.W.2d 660, 296 Minn. 490, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-prince-minn-1973.