People v. Tolliver

Decision Date15 July 1980
Docket NumberCr. 10564
Citation166 Cal.Rptr. 328,108 Cal.App.3d 171
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ira TOLLIVER, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Ted W. Isles, Sacramento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., James T. McNally and Roger E. Venturi Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

CARR, Associate Justice.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury for felony indecent exposure. (Pen.Code, § 314, subd. 1.) A prior conviction of indecent exposure was charged and proved. He argues that the trial court's failure to instruct, sua sponte, on lewd and disorderly conduct (Pen.Code, § 647, subd. (a)) as a lesser included offense constitutes reversible error.

On March 18, 1979, at 5:15 p. m., defendant called an Avon sales representative, Ms. H. and requested she come to his house. Ms. H. told defendant that she would not visit the house unless there was a woman present. He then told her that his wife was there, they were just moving in, they had four children and asked Ms. H. if she would like to speak to his wife. Ms. H. went to the house and was met at the front door by defendant who was dressed in a hip-length, brown velour robe and was dripping wet. She was invited inside and sat down while defendant walked down the hall to the bathroom. When he returned, the robe he was wearing was open from the waist down, exposing his genitals to Ms. H. Defendant sat down across from her, spread his legs apart and stared at her in a "scary" manner.

He then told Ms. H. that his wife was away and would be right back and that he wanted to place an order for her birthday. Ms. H. got up, told defendant she would not take his order unless he was decent and stepped out the front door. He then responded that he knew what he wanted, referred to page 15 or 16 of the Avon book and said, "I want this or this." Ms. H. turned to look at what he was referring and saw defendant masturbating. Ms. H. then fled hysterically.

The sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by failing to instruct, sua sponte on the offense of lewd and disorderly conduct (Pen.Code, § 647, subd. (a)) as a necessarily included lesser offense to indecent exposure. (Pen.Code, § 314, subd. 1.) The trial court has a sua sponte obligation to instruct on any necessarily lesser included offenses. (People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715-716, 112 Cal.Rptr. 1, 518 P.2d 913.) The question is whether the commission of the offense of indecent exposure necessarily includes the commission of the offense of lewd and disorderly conduct. (See People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 612, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409.)

Defendant relies on People v. Swearington (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 935, 140 Cal.Rptr. 5 which holds: "A comparison of the two offenses 'disorderly conduct' and 'indecent exposure' makes it clear that a person who has committed a violation of Penal Code section 314, subdivision 1, a felony, has necessarily committed also a violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor, since each of the two offenses requires that the perpetrator has engaged in 'lewd' conduct in a public place." (P. 944, 140 Cal.Rptr. p. 9.) Although correct on its facts as a public place was involved, the principle enunciated in Swearington is inapplicable to this case.

All violations of section 647, subdivision (a) must occur "in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view." A violation of section 314, subdivision 1, however, may occur "in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Madden
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 1981
    ...of the former (People v. Pendleton (1979) 25 Cal.3d 371, 382, 158 Cal.Rptr. 343, 599 P.2d 649; see also People v. Tolliver (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 171, 173-174, 166 Cal.Rptr. 328 (holding Pen.Code, § 647, subd. (a) is not a necessarily included offense to indecent exposure)). There was no dut......
  • People v. Rylaarsdam, Cr. A
    • United States
    • California Superior Court
    • February 17, 1982
    ...may consist of conduct in a private home if there is a person present who may be offended by such conduct. (People v. Tolliver (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 171, 173-174, 166 Cal.Rptr. 328.) However, he urges that the statute should not be applied to punish "those who expose themselves solely to ot......
  • The People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 2010
    ...of lewd conduct in public, subsequent cases have held that the offense is not a lesser included of indecent exposure. In People v. Tolliver (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 171 the court concluded that lewd conduct in public was not a lesser included offense of indecent exposure because indecent expos......
  • People v. Ceja
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 2013
    ...and necessarily included offense of felony indecent exposure. (See People v. Meeker (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 358, 362; People v. Tolliver (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 171, 173-174.) The court in People v. Meeker explained it is possible to violate section 314, subdivision 1 (indecent exposure), witho......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT