Opinion
No. 51474-1-I.
Filed: February 9, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No: 02-1-07561-1. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 11/25/2002.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Glenn Legg (Appearing Pro Se), 4120 Stoneway N. Seattle, WA 98103-8014.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Jared Courtland Kimball, Attorney at Law, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA 98104-2362.
Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Evidence that Glenn Legg stood naked in front of a twelve-year-old boy in a laundry and later stated that `I just wanted to show him what he would look like when he grew up' is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that he intentionally exposed himself to the boy. Legg's conviction for felony indecent exposure is affirmed.
Report of Proceedings (RP) (Nov. 6, 2002) at 40.
FACTS
A twelve-year-old boy and his mother were washing items at a self-service laundry. The boy went to the front of the store to look for something to read. He saw Glenn Legg without any clothes on. He told his mother, who then also saw that Legg had no clothes on. They both saw that Legg's penis was erect. Legg did not try to cover himself with anything as the mother and the boy walked past him and left the laundry. Another person in the laundry heard Legg say `Why did he get his mom?' and `I just wanted to show him what he would look like when he grew up.'
RP (Nov. 6, 2002) at 30, 40.
Legg testified that he is homeless and has only two shirts, pants, socks and underwear with a coat and a pair of basketball shorts. He planned to wash both sets of clothes at the same time by removing his pants and underwear and putting on the basketball shorts. There is no bathroom in the laundry where he could change. The boy first saw Legg as he was preparing to remove his pants and underwear, but while he still had clothes on. Legg saw the boy go over to his mother. Legg waited a short time and when no one came back, he proceeded to remove his pants and underwear at the same time while holding his basketball shorts in his hand The boy pulled the mother over to where Legg was standing. Legg was embarrassed and scared to move. He denies having an erection and denies saying anything about wanting to show the boy what he would look like when he was older. He acknowledged that it would be bad for a child to see a stranger naked with an erection. Legg also had a prior conviction for a sex offense.
The jury found Legg guilty of felony indecent exposure.
DECISION
The sole issue raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence that Legg intentionally exposed himself to the boy rather than merely undressing when the boy saw him. In a criminal case, the test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is `whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' Any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence admits all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom. Felony indecent exposure requires proof that a person with a prior conviction for a sex offense intentionally made an open and obscene exposure of his person to a child less than fourteen years of age knowing that it was likely to cause reasonable affront and alarm. A person acts intentionally when he acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 616 P.2d 628 (1980).
State v. Delmarter, 94 Wn.2d 634, 638, 618 P.2d 99 (1980).
The evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution reveals much more than a person merely undressing where a child might see him. There is substantial evidence that Legg was naked with an erection in a public place when the boy saw him. Legg did not attempt to cover himself with anything and a witness heard him say that he `just wanted the boy to see what he would look like when he grew up.' Such evidence supports the determination that Legg intentionally exposed himself to the twelve-year-old boy.
Legg acknowledges that there is `evidence suggesting that Legg knew that exposing one's genitals to a young child could cause reasonable affront and alarm.' Appellants brief p. 7.
There is substantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt supporting Legg's conviction of indecent exposure.
Affirmed.
COLEMAN and AGID, JJ., concur.