Connecticut Appellate Court· 4/2/1964

State v. Sousa

Citations

2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 452
201 A.2d 664
1964 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 170

How courts have described this case

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

indecent exposure statute properly applied, despite fact that the conduct occurred within the defendant’s apartment, where it was plainly visible to others on the outside
“ ‘While the exposure must be intentional and not accidental, the intent required is only a general one, and need not be directed toward any specific person or persons.’ ” (quoting Peyton v. Dist. of Columbia, 100 A.2d 36, 37 (D.C.1953)
“ ‘While the exposure must be intentional and not accidental, the intent required is only a general one, and need not be directed toward any specific person or persons.’ ” (quoting Peyton v. Dist. of Columbia, 100 A.2d 36, 37 (D.C. 1953)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jacobs

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 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.