State v. Bauguess

• Decision Date: 04 October 1898
• Parties: STATE v. BAUGUESS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

106 Iowa 107

76 N.W. 508

STATE

v.BAUGUESS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 4, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Lee county; Henry Bank, Jr., Judge.

Defendant was indicted and tried for the crime of lewdness, and from a judgment of conviction prosecutes this appeal. Affirmed.T. B. Snyder and Watson & Weber, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Jesse A. Miller, for the State.

WATERMAN, J.

The only matters seriously urged relate to the sufficiency of the indictment. The material portion of that instrument is as follows: “That A. M. Bauguess, on the 28th day of June, 1897, at the township of Madison, in the county of Lee and state aforesaid, did willfully, unlawfully, and designedly make an open, indecent, and obscene exposure of his person in a public place, to wit, at or near Pine street, on the north side of Sixth street, in the city of Fort Madison,” etc.

2. The first point sought to be made by appellant is that the indictment is fatally defective in not particularly specifying the part of the body that was exposed. It is said that no crime is charged, since the offense is not described, but only named. The indictment was found under section 4012, Code 1873. The offense is designated as “lewdness,” and the different forms of lewdness that are made punishable are described. The portion of the section that has application here is in these terms: “If any man or woman, married or unmarried, is guilty of open and gross lewdness and designedly make any open and indecent or obscene exposure of his or her person or of the person of another, every such person shall be punished,” etc. The offense we think is here both named and described. The phrase, “an indecent exposure of the person,” in our opinion, has a well-settled and commonly accepted signification. It means the exhibition of such parts of the person as modesty or a sense of self-respect requires to be kept usually covered. Appellant argues that, so far as appears, the exposure might have been of the hand or foot. But the charge is that it was an indecent and obscene exhibition, and this precludes any such idea as that suggested. It has been repeatedly held that an indictment is sufficient if it charges the offense in the language of the statute, when that shows the material facts which constitute the offense. State v. Whalen, 98 Iowa, 662, 68 N. W. 554, and cases cited. See, also, the more recent case of State v. Porter (Iowa) 75 N. W. 519. It is thought by counsel for appellant that this case falls within the rule announced in State v. Butcher, 79 Iowa, 111, 44 N. W. 239; but we think not. The distinction appears clear. In the latter case the offense, while named in the statute, was not...