State v. Strong
| Decision Date | 09 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. KA-0811,KA-0811 |
| Citation | 446 So.2d 506 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Virgil H. STRONG. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Susan Scott Hunt, Asst. Dist. Atty., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
M. Craig Colwart, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before REDMANN, BARRY and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Defendant, Virgil Strong, appeals his conviction and sentence for violation of La.R.S. 14:106(A)(1), obscenity, claiming that the State failed to sustain its burden of proving all of the elements of that crime. We affirm.
Officers Keen and Crespo were the only witnesses at defendant's bench trial. They testified that on April 6, 1982, at approximately 5 P.M., they were working a plainclothes detail in City Park in New Orleans. As the officers were walking about twenty feet apart in the area of Palm and Roosevelt Mall, they saw the defendant pull up, driving a white Maverick. Apparently the defendant got out of his car and began following Crespo on foot. Crespo walked over some railroad tracks into an area of trees and defendant followed, passing Crespo, and stopped. Defendant was standing between the railroad tracks and I-610, where he would have been able to see automobiles passing and where those in passing automobiles could have seen him. When Crespo passed defendant, defendant turned around. Defendant was holding his erect penis outside of his pants, masturbating. Defendant nodded to the plainclothes officer, who then arrested defendant. Defendant made no other sexual advances to Crespo. Crespo did not have an erection; nor was he sexually stimulated.
Defendant was found guilty after a bench trial and subsequently sentenced to six months in Parish Prison, suspended; was fined $250.00; and was placed on eighteen months active probation on the condition he obtain psychological counseling.
Defendant argues before this court that the State failed to prove an intent to arouse the sexual desire of another and that, therefore, all of the elements of the crime of obscenity were not met.
La.R.S. 14:106 states in pertinent part:
A. The crime of obscenity is the intentional:
(1) Exposure of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples in any public place or place open to public view with the intent of arousing sexual desire, or which appeals to prurient interests or is patently offensive.
Defendant was charged with committing obscenity by exposing his genitals in a public place or a place open to public view with the intent of arousing sexual desire. Defendant does not deny the fact that Crespo saw defendant's exposed penis or that defendant exposed himself in a public park in view of passing automobiles on the Interstate Highway. Rather, defendant maintains that "the state only proved that the defendant sexually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Poche
...also State v. Lewis, 00-53, (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/13/00), 776 So.2d 613, writ denied, 01-381 (La.10/5/01), 798 So.2d 966; State v. Strong, 446 So.2d 506 (La.App. 4 Cir.1984); State v. Walters, 440 So.2d 115 In State v. Smith, 04-805 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 887 So.2d 701, Smith appealed his ......
-
State v. Banks
...to prove the offender acted with a specific intent to arouse sexual desire, either of the actor or of the viewer); State v. Strong , 446 So.2d 506, 507 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1984).The defendant is correct that the surveillance video does not show his penis. The assistant warden at Ashland Jail t......