State v. Wimmer

"A person commits the crime of private indecency if they expose the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and: (a) the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” ORS 163.467(1)(a). A place where another has a reasonable expectation of privacy “includes, but is not limited to, residences, yards of residences, working areas, and offices.” ORS 163.467(4).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for private indecency, which stemmed from an incident where Defendant masturbated in front of his adult daughter in a viewing room at an adult sex shop. Defendant asserted that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the viewing room was not a place where one had a reasonable expectation of privacy. ORS 163.467(1)(a) states that “a person commits the crime of private indecency if they expose the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and: (a) the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” A place where another has a reasonable expectation of privacy “includes, but is not limited to, residences, yards of residences, working areas, and offices.” ORS 163.467(4). In reviewing the statutory construction of ORS 163.467, the Court considered the plain text, context, and legislative history/intent. The Court noted that the statute expressly included “residences, yards of residences, working areas and offices” as places where an expectation of privacy exists, and are notably not open to the public. The Court concluded that the statute was intended to cover situations where inappropriate exposure occurs in an area that a person reasonably expects is not public. Upon this determination, the Court then analyzed whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the statute were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that because the daughter barricaded the door of the viewing room with her body, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room which was not open to the general public, thus the State had proven the essential elements of the crime. Affirmed.