Opinion
No. 5-351 / 04-0834
Filed June 29, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Arlen Van Zee, District Associate Judge.
R.S. appeals a juvenile court decision finding he committed the delinquent act of indecent exposure. AFFIRMED.
Mary Wolfe of Wolfe Law Office, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Mike L. Wolf, County Attorney, and Ross Barlow, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
R.S. appeals a juvenile court decision finding he committed the delinquent act of indecent exposure in violation of Iowa Code section 709.9 (2003). We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
R.S. was charged with the aforementioned offense following an incident that occurred at the Royal Pines Trailer Park in Clinton, Iowa, on the night of October 9, 2003. The State alleged that R.S., then sixteen, stood in the trailer park naked, exposing his erect penis to several individuals.
During R.S.'s adjudicatory hearing, several witnesses testified for the State. Janice Conklin testified that she saw R.S. cross the street and wave as he walked toward her, naked and erect, when she returned home around 9:30 p.m. Geneva and Ron May Jr., Janice's niece and nephew, and next door neighbors, also witnessed R.S. standing outside naked and erect. Finally, James Poel testified that when he drove through the trailer park, he had to swerve around R.S. once he noticed R.S. standing naked and erect in the road.
When originally confronted by Officer Brett Simmons on the night of the incident, R.S. denied exposing himself. R.S. later admitted to Officer Colin Reid that he walked through the trailer park naked for approximately ten minutes.
On April 21, 2004, the juvenile court ordered R.S. be adjudicated delinquent. At the conclusion of his dispositional hearing, the court placed R.S. on probation for six to twelve months, and ordered a review to determine whether R.S. should be placed on the sex offender registry. R.S. appeals.
On appeal, R.S. raises the following issues for review:
I.THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT R.S. EXPOSED HIS GENITALS WITH THE INTENT TO AROUSE THE SEXUAL DESIRES OF EITHER HIMSELF OR A THIRD PARTY.
II.THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT R.S.'S CONDUCT WAS OFFENSIVE TO ONLOOKERS, OR THAT R.S. KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS BEHAVIOR WAS OFFENSIVE TO ONLOOKERS.II. Standard of Review
Our review is de novo. In re S.C.S., 454 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1990). Weight should be given to the fact-findings of the juvenile court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but the reviewing court is not bound by them. In re J.D.F., 553 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1996).
III. The Merits
An adjudication of J.S.'s delinquency requires proof he committed the crime of indecent exposure. See Iowa Code § 709.9. The criminal act of indecent exposure contains four elements:
1. The exposure of genitals or pubes to someone other than a spouse, or, in the alternative, the commission of a sex act in the presence of a third person;
2. That the act is done to arouse the sexual desires of either party;
3. The viewer was offended by the conduct; and
4. The actor knew, or under the circumstances should have known, the victim would be offended.
State v. Adams, 436 N.W.2d 49, 50 (Iowa 1989) (citing Iowa Code § 709.9). The State has the burden to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Iowa Code § 232.47(10); see also In re S.C.S., 454 N.W.2d at 814 (State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that juvenile engaged in delinquent act). If in our de novo review, admissible evidence satisfies this standard, we need not reverse an adjudication of delinquency. In re Thompson, 241 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Iowa 1976).
R.S. asserts the State failed to meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to arouse his own or others' sexual desires when he stood outside naked, with an erect penis. He argues the evidence demonstrates that he never made any movements or motions in an attempt to draw particular attention to his penis, and further believes that his erection alone is not enough to establish any kind of sexual motivation. We find the State has established beyond a reasonable doubt that R.S. intended to arouse his sexual desires.
The record shows that R.S. drew attention to himself as he stood in the trailer park naked, with an erection, for ten to twenty minutes. The witnesses recalled that during that time, R.S. was seen waving as he approached Janice and James while maintaining his erection. We find these circumstances give rise to the inference that R.S. acted with the intent to arouse his sexual desires. See State v. Finnel, 515 N.W.2d 41, 42 (Iowa 1994) (finding element of intent seldom susceptible to proof by direct evidence, but depends on inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence); State v. Howard, 404 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Iowa Ct.App. 1987) ("The fact finder may determine intent by such reasonable inferences and deductions as may be drawn from facts proved by evidence in accordance with common experiences and observation.").
J.S. next contends there is insufficient evidence that his conduct was offensive to the individuals who saw him naked in the trailer park, or that he knew or should have known his conduct was offensive. The State believes J.S. failed to preserve error on this issue, and in the alternative, the State argues substantial evidence supports his conviction. Because this adjudication was tried to the court, J.S. was not required to raise his sufficiency claim to preserve error for appeal. See State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161, 167 (Iowa 2001). We will therefore address the merits of J.S.'s claim.
According to our indecent exposure statute, the State must show the viewer was offended by the conduct, and also that the actor knew or under the circumstances, should have known the viewer would be offended. State v. Bauer, 337 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Iowa 1983). We can infer from their testimony that Janice, Geneva, and Ron were all offended by R.S.'s conduct. Janice testified:
When I first saw him, I was just parking. And then when I got out, then he started over towards me. And I went in my trailer and closed and locked the door.
. . . .
I was afraid. I didn't know — I didn't know who he was or what he was going to do.
Geneva testified that she went back inside her trailer after seeing R.S. because "it kind of scared [her]." Moreover, on the night of the incident, Ron told R.S. "to get some clothes on."
Furthermore, we conclude the circumstantial evidence establishes that R.S. knew or should have known his conduct would be offensive to others. As previously mentioned, R.S. was sixteen years old at the time of the incident. Although he had been placed in a few special education courses in school, R.S. recognized the wrongfulness of his actions when he told Officer Reid that he felt "stupid" for what he had done. Moreover, Janice testified that as soon as James drove by in his car, "[R.S.] took off." This action further shows that he knew what he was doing was offensive and wrong.
We affirm the decision of the district court finding R.S. committed the delinquent act of indecent exposure.