State v. Prince

206 N.W.2d 660, 296 Minn. 490, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1240
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 20, 1973·No. 43748·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

State v. Prince, 206 N.W.2d 660, 296 Minn. 490, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1240 (Mich. 1973).

206 N.W.2d 660 (State v. Prince) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte
Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2024
State v. Jama
923 N.W.2d 632 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2019)
State v. Stevenson
656 N.W.2d 235 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2003)