State v. Cleaver

ORS 163.467 states that a “person commits the crime of private indecency if the person exposes the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and, inter alia, the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Petitioner appealed a judgment of conviction for private indecency (ORS 163.467) after he exposed himself to his seventeen-year-old daughter while in his bedroom. Petitioner made one assignment of error, arguing that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to establish an element of ORS 163.467. The Court disagreed with the petitioner's argument and affirmed the lower court decision. ORS 163.467 states that a “person commits the crime of private indecency if the person exposes the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person and, inter alia, the person is in a place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” On review, the Court focused on petitioner's interpretation of a place of reasonable privacy, and the Court’s previous holding in State v. Miller, 242 Or App 572 (2011), and State v. Wimmer, 325 Or App, 372 (2023) where the Court defined what constitutes a place of reasonable privacy as “a place to which the general public does not have access—regardless of whether the person has a right to access the place or to be free from scrutiny while in that place.” Ultimately, the Court concluded that although the exposure happened in Petitioner’s bedroom, it happened in a residence, which is part of the statutory definition of a place where another person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; therefore, the trial court properly denied petitioner’s motion for acquittal. Affirmed.