State v. Parenteau, C-90-CRB-7139
| Decision Date | 24 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C-90-CRB-7139,C-90-CRB-7139 |
| Citation | 55 Ohio Misc.2d 10,564 N.E.2d 505 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio v. PARENTEAU. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
William M. Al'ugdah, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff.
Henry E. Sheldon II, for defendant.
This matter was tried by the court on May 7, 1990, the defendant, Pamela L. Parenteau, having been charged by the Hamilton County Sheriff's office with public indecency, in violation of R.C. 2907.09.
Defendant was part of a "lingerie fashion show" at a nightclub named "Scandals" in western Hamilton County. The charge arose from the modeling by defendant of a lace brassiere which was alleged by the officer to be "see-through," in that the officer testified he could observe a nipple area through the lace fabric. Defendant was apprehended after she had retired to a back room to change her clothing. The officers asked Parenteau for the clothing she was wearing, which they confiscated.
The evidence produced in court included a lace brassiere, a pair of underpants, stockings, and a small square of pantyhose fabric. The panties and stockings were not relevant, considering that the charge was not based upon anything in connection with the defendant's lower anatomy. Defendant testified that she wore the pantyhose fabric under the bra in order to be certain that it was not transparent in the area of the nipple. Defendant further stated that she was wearing two such squares, one on each breast, during the performance, but that only one was in evidence, since she had already removed her bra when she was arrested, and the other square had dropped out and was not recovered by the officers. An additional witness testified that she saw defendant cutting pantyhose to make the squares before she dressed. Much ado was made about whether one or two squares were worn, but in the court's view of the law, the existence or nonexistence of the pantyhose material within one side of the brassiere is not controlling.
The question presented is whether the defendant can be convicted of public indecency, in violation of R.C. 2907.09, for wearing a lace brassiere which totally covered her breasts, but was partially transparent, or "see through." If so, does the insertion of pantyhose material, rendering the brassiere less "see through," change the result?
R.C. 2907.09 states, in pertinent part, as follows: "(A) No person shall recklessly do any of the following, under circumstances in which his or her conduct is likely to be viewed by and affront others, not members of his or her household:
"(1) Expose his or her private parts * * *."
The section goes on to prohibit other conduct, none of which is involved here.
Many issues could be raised, including whether the "circumstances," in a nightclub called "Scandals," were such that the conduct would be "likely to affront others." The only testimony adduced on this issue was the comment by the officer when asked by the prosecutor whether he enjoyed the show, that he did not.
However, the resolution of this case is quite clear (though perhaps not transparent), in that the definition of "private parts" does not include the situation here. Quite simply, a breast is not a "private part" within the meaning of this section. Therefore, it is not necessary for the court to determine whether the lace covering, with or without the pantyhose material insert, would negate the finding of guilt in this case.
No constitutional argument was made. See, e.g., Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975), 422 U.S. 205, 95 S.Ct. 2268, 45 L.Ed.2d 125. Nor does this court need to reach the issue of whether the conduct herein could be prohibited by the state, since the state has clearly not tried to prohibit it by the plain meaning of this statute.
In Ohio Jury Instructions, the term "private parts" is defined to mean "genitals." 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (1982), Section 507.09. Likewise, The American Heritage Dictionary of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Santorelli
...have taken the position that breasts are not "private parts" and that breast exposure is not indecent behavior (State v. Parenteau, 55 Ohio Misc.2d 10, 11, 564 N.E.2d 505, citing State v. Jones, 7 N.C.App. 166, 171 S.E.2d 468; State v. Moore, 194 Or. 232, 241 P.2d 455; State v. Crenshaw, 61......
-
Com. v. Arthur
...of the buttocks "would raise an issue of vagueness [in the constitutional sense]." Id. at 728 n. 10. See State v. Parenteau, 55 Ohio Misc.2d 10, 11, 564 N.E.2d 505 (1990) (female breasts are not "private parts" within meaning of indecent exposure statute). In contrast, in Belmar v. Buckley,......