California Supreme Court· 6/13/1972

In Re Smith

Citations

497 P.2d 807
7 Cal. 3d 362
102 Cal. Rptr. 335
1972 Cal. LEXIS 197

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“The separate requirement that the intent of the actor be ‘lewd’ is an essential element of the offense . . . .”
“[A] person does not expose his private parts ‘lewdly’ within the meaning of [the statute] unless his conduct is sexually motivated.”
nude male sunbathing on public beach not necessarily lewd and indecent exposure
“[A] conviction [for indecent exposure] requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mosk

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.