See also, Wynne v. State, 65 Ga. App. 213, 15 S.E.2d 623. State v. Wolf, 211 Mo. App. 429, 244 S.W. 962, also relied on by the defendant, was a prosecution under a statute similar to that involved in Morris v. State, supra. The information, which did not allege the place of the exposure, was held to be defective because it failed to allege that the act was committed in the presence of more than one person.

The people of the State of Michigan, through a statute, have decreed that it shall be illegal for any one to designedly make any open or indecent or obscene exposure of his or her person or of the person of another. The following authorities have been considered: I Bishop on Criminal Law (9th Ed.), §§ 1128, 1130; Commonwealth v. Hardin, 10 Ky. Op. 925; State v. Martin, 125 Iowa, 715 ( 101 N.W. 637); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 237 Ky. 682 ( 36 S.W. [2d] 342); State v. Wolf, 211 Mo. App. 429 ( 244 S.W. 962); Van Houten v. State, 46 N.J. Law, 16 (50 Am. Rep. 397); People v. Bixby, 67 Barb. (N.Y.) 221; State v. Millard, 18 Vt. 574 (46 Am. Dec. 170); Redd v. State, 7 Ga. App. 575 ( 67 S.E. 709); People v. Seltzer, 122 Misc. Rep. 329 ( 203 N.Y. Supp. 809); United States v. Dennett (C.C.A.), 39 Fed. (2d) 564 (76 A.L.R. 1092); People v. Pesky, 230 App. Div. 200 ( 243 N.Y. Supp. 193); People v. Wendling, 258 N.Y. 451 ( 180 N.E. 169, 81 A.L.R. 799); Commonwealth v. Friede, 271 Mass. 318 ( 171 N.E. 472, 69 A.L.R. 640); State v. Burke, 199 N.C. 458 ( 154 S.E. 747). The appellant in his brief submits the clear question:

See also Reg. v. Farrell, 9 Cox Crim. Cas. (Ire.) 446; State v. Wolf, 211 Mo. App. 429, 244 S.W. 962 (1922). On the other hand, early American common law cases hold that the likelihood that the act may be seen by a number of casual observers is sufficient.

The issues of common assault or lewd and lascivious conduct were not in the case. State v. Klink, 254 S.W.2d 650; State v. Wolf, 211 Mo. App. 429, 244 S.W. 962; State v. Bird, 358 Mo. 284, 214 S.W.2d 38; State v. Coffman, 360 Mo. 782, 230 S.W.2d 761, 763; State v. Brown, 245 S.W.2d 866; Sec. 563.160, RSMo 1949. (16) Appellant's complaint that the court erred in failing to sustain his objections and requests for a mistrial made when comment was made and testimony was given relative to alleged matters beyond the scope of and broader than the charge in the information is without merit. See Points Authorities (12) supra; Sec. 563.160 RSMo 1949; State v. Jackson, 95 Mo. 623, 8 S.W. 749; State v. Johnson, 334 Mo. 10, 64 S.W.2d 655; State v. Pfeiffer, 267 Mo. 23, 183 S.W. 337. (17) The information is in proper form, follows the language of the statute and properly charges appellant with the crime of annoying, molesting, detaining and diverting a minor.

People v. Legel, 24 Ill. App.3d 554, 321 N.E.2d 164 (1974). But see State v. Wolf, 211 Mo.App. 429, 244 S.W. 962 (1922). By statute in some jurisdictions, when a child or children are the victims, commission of the offense is not restricted to a public place.

State v. Parker, 233 Mo.App. 1037, 128 S.W.2d 288. The allegation that the act was in the presence of the female companion of defendant would not be sufficient under the decisions. State v. Wolf, 211 Mo.App. 429, 244 S.W. 962. It is true that the act need not be actually offensive to those present. State v. Pedigo, 190 Mo.App. 293, 176 S.W. 556.