State v. Isaac

• Citation: 756 N.W.2d 817
• Decision Date: 05 September 2008
• Docket Number: No. 06-2030.,06-2030.
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Ronnie James ISAAC, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

756 N.W.2d 817

STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Ronnie James ISAAC, Appellant.

No. 06-2030.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

September 5, 2008.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary E. Tabor, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Susan C. Cox, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

TERNUS, Chief Justice.

The district court convicted the appellant, Ronnie Isaac, of indecent exposure after a police officer caught him masturbating outside a woman's bedroom window. On appeal, Isaac claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because he exposed his genitals only to the officer and that exposure was inadvertent. The court of appeals rejected this argument, and we granted Isaac's application for further review. Upon our consideration of the governing statute, we hold the State must prove that, at the time Isaac exposed himself to the officer, he did so for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of himself or the officer. Because there is insufficient evidence that Isaac's exposure of his genitals to the officer was for this purpose, the State has failed to prove Isaac committed the crime of indecent exposure. We therefore vacate the court of appeals' decision, reverse the district court's judgment of conviction, and remand this case for dismissal of the indecent exposure charge.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

On June 29, 2006, Micaela went to bed at 1 a.m. at her condominium in Ankeny. About twenty minutes later, Micaela heard knocking on her bedroom window. She heard a man moaning in a sexual manner and repeating sexually explicit exclamations. She did not open the window or look through the blinds. Micaela woke up her roommate who heard a male voice say "oh baby." The women called the police.

Ankeny police officers Robert Kovacs and Brian Huggins responded to the women's call. After the officers failed to find anyone outside the residence, they went inside to speak with the women.

Meanwhile, Jennifer, who lived in another condominium nearby, had just gotten into bed. She heard heavy breathing outside her bedroom window and what sounded like something rubbing against the window screen. She did not attempt to look outside her window.

Officer Kovacs left Officer Huggins with Micaela and went back outside to further search the area. As he walked around one of the buildings in the complex, Officer Kovacs saw a man standing in front of Jennifer's window. The man was looking into the window with his left hand on the wall and his right hand on his crotch. Officer Kovacs testified it appeared the man was masturbating or fondling himself.

Officer Kovacs shined a flashlight on the man, identified himself as a police officer, and asked the man what he was doing. The man, Ronnie Isaac, turned toward the officer. Officer Kovacs noticed the zipper of Isaac's blue jeans was down and his penis was outside his pants by his hand. Officer Kovacs could not tell whether Isaac's penis was erect.

Isaac took off running. Officer Kovacs chased after him while repeatedly yelling "stop, police." Officer Kovacs caught up with Isaac and tackled him as Officer Huggins came outside to assist. Officer Kovacs placed Isaac in handcuffs and noticed Isaac's hands were oily. A bottle of baby oil was found in Isaac's back pocket. The officers turned Isaac over and saw his flaccid penis outside his pants. Officer Kovacs put Isaac's penis back into his jeans and zipped up his pants.

The State charged Isaac with indecent exposure, interference with official acts, and two counts of harassment in the third degree. Isaac waived his right to a jury. After a trial, the district court found him guilty on all counts. Isaac appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the indecent exposure conviction. He did not appeal the convictions on the other counts. The court of appeals affirmed. We granted further review.

II. Scope of Review.

Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Quinn, 691 N.W.2d 403, 406 (Iowa 2005). The district court's findings of the required elements of an offense are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 377 (Iowa 1998). Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Sutton, 636 N.W.2d 107, 110 (Iowa 2001).

III. Merits.

The issue before us is whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Isaac of indecent exposure. Iowa Code section 709.9 (2005) defines this crime. It states in relevant part:

A person who exposes the person's genitals or pubes to another not the person's spouse ... commits a serious misdemeanor, if:

1. The person does so to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either party; and

2. The person knows or reasonably should know that the act is offensive to the viewer.

Iowa Code § 709.9.

Because indecent exposure is "`essentially a visual assault crime,'" State v. Bauer, 337 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Iowa 1983) (quoting Kermit L. Dunahoo, The New Iowa Criminal Code: Part II, 29 Drake. L.Rev. 491, 541 (1979-80)), the State needed to produce a victim who saw Isaac's exposed genitals. See Iowa Code § 709.9 (prohibiting the exposure of a person's genitals "to another" when the person knows or reasonably should know the act is offensive "to the viewer"). Neither Micaela nor Jennifer saw Isaac or his penis. Thus, the State relies on Isaac's exposure of his genitals to Officer Kovacs to support Isaac's conviction of indecent exposure. On appeal, Isaac claims there was insufficient evidence to prove he exposed himself to Officer Kovacs for the purpose of arousing his sexual desires or the sexual desires of the officer. We agree.

Previously, we have broken down the crime of indecent exposure into four elements:

1. The exposure of genitals or pubes to someone other than a spouse ...;

2. That the act is done to arouse the sexual desires of either party;

3. The viewer was offended by the conduct; and

4. The actor knew, or under the circumstances should have known, the victim would be offended.

State v. Adams, 436 N.W.2d 49, 50 (Iowa 1989) (citing Bauer, 337 N.W.2d at 212).¹ "`It is only exposure with a sexual motivation, inflicted upon an unwilling viewer, which will constitute the offense.'" Bauer, 337 N.W.2d at 211 (quoting 4 John J. Yeager & Ronald L. Carlson, Iowa Practice: Criminal Law and Procedure § 217, at 63 (1979)) (emphasis omitted). Thus, even deliberate exposure done without a sexual motive, such as streaking, nude protesting or urinating in public, is outside the proscription of section 709.9. Id. at 211-12.

In the present case, the State satisfied the first element of the offense by proving Isaac exposed his penis to Officer Kovacs. The problematic element is the second one: Was this exposure to Officer Kovacs done for the purpose of arousing Isaac's or the officer's sexual desires?² It is not sufficient that prior to this exposure Isaac sought to satisfy his sexual desires. Our statute requires such a purpose at the time of exposure to the viewer. See Iowa Code § 709.9 (requiring that "the person expose his genitals or pubes to someone other than a spouse to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either party"); see also State v. Plenty Horse, 741 N.W.2d 763, 765 (S.D.2007) (holding "the prosecution must link the exhibition of one's genitals to the intent to seek sexual gratification"). Whether a defendant's exposure of his genitals to another person was done for the purpose of arousing the sexual desires of himself or the viewer can be inferred from the defendant's conduct, his remarks, and the surrounding circumstances.

After examining the record in the present case, we find no conduct, remarks, or circumstances from which an inference can be drawn that the required purpose existed at the time Isaac exposed his genitals to Officer Kovacs. Officer Kovacs testified that Isaac had his back to the officer when the officer first spotted Isaac outside Jennifer's window. The officer stated he could not see Isaac's penis at that point, but he believed Isaac's right hand was in the area of Isaac's crotch. The officer testified that he then shone a flashlight on Isaac and yelled "police" at which point Isaac "turned his body towards Officer Kovacs, looked at Officer Kovacs, and then immediately took off running around the side of the building." The officer further testified that, when Isaac "turned and faced Officer Kovacs, he still had his hand down, and when he saw Officer Kovacs, his hand came off." The officer could not tell whether Isaac's penis was erect.

These facts do not support an inference that Isaac exposed himself to Officer Kovacs to satisfy his or the officer's sexual desires. First of all, there are no facts indicating Isaac's exposure of his penis to the officer was anything other than inadvertent, occurring as a result of Isaac turning in response to the officer's call. Secondly, Isaac immediately removed his hand from his crotch and fled. These actions suggest his sexual desires evaporated, rather than continued, when he was discovered by the officer. Finally, there was no evidence that Isaac became sexually aroused when he turned to face the officer or that he masturbated while exposing himself to the officer, circumstances and conduct that could support an inference that his exposure to the officer was sexually motivated.

The State would have us combine Isaac's intent when he was masturbating out of sight with his subsequent exposure to Officer Kovacs. To interpret section 709.9 as the State suggests would ignore the statutory requirement that the exposure be to another for the purpose of sexual gratification. This point is illustrated by a comparison of the Iowa statute with the indecent exposure statute...