McKinley v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | A-5422. |
| Citation | 244 P. 208,33 Okla.Crim. 434 |
| Parties | McKINLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where an accused is charged with lewdly exposing his person, under the provisions of section 1886, Comp. Stat. 1921, the word "lewdly" imports a lascivious intent, and proof of negligent exposure, or an exposure contrary to established standards of propriety, without any motive of lust or sexual indulgence, is not sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of such charge.
Appeal from County Court, Cherokee County; Hugh M. Bland, Judge.
R. W McKinley was convicted of indecent exposure of his person and he appeals. Reversed.
Bruce L. Keenan and Sanford Martin, both of Tahlequah, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General and Fred Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, here designated the defendant, was prosecuted for lewdly exposing his person in the presence of Mary Schmelzla by taking a bath in her presence. By verdict of a jury he was found guilty, with his punishment fixed at a fine of $25 and the costs of the prosecution. The statutory meaning of the word "lewdly" and the motives of the defendant, as deduced from the facts proved, are practically the only questions involved in this appeal.
In the testimony the defendant is referred to as "the old man"; it was shown that he lived alone in a comfortable cottage on the hillside in Tahlequah; at first there were no other houses near, but some weeks prior to the date named in the information a house was moved and set on a lot adjacent to defendant's, with a distance of 40 or 50 feet between the two houses. During the hot summer months the defendant slept in his cottage in Adamic simplicity, without garments or covering; each morning he arose and prepared his morning meal, naked and unadorned; after that he repaired to a room adjoining the kitchen, 8 by 16 feet in dimensions, in the end of which there was a window, 24 inches square, overlooking the rear of the house in which the prosecuting witness lived here, each morning, the defendant shaved himself and took a bath, sometimes with the window shade down and sometimes not.
On the day named in the information the wife of this neighbor, the prosecutrix, and her husband, while eating breakfast in their home, saw the defendant in his bathroom, through the bathroom window, taking his customary bath, to the embarrassment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MLC v. State, 2D03-1483.
...than a negligent disregard of the decent proprieties and consideration due to others." 469 So.2d at 197 (quoting McKinley v. State, 33 Okla.Crim. 434, 244 P. 208, 208 (1926) and citing Chesebrough, 255 So.2d at 675). The evidence is simply insufficient for a finding that M.L.C.'s conduct wa......