State v. Whitaker

How courts have described this case

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

• noting “the purpose of the exposure and the likelihood of affront” are the crux of indecent exposure
• “Indecent exposure and particular acts and forms of lewdness or gross indecency with respect to sexual relations constituted criminal offenses at common law.”
• indecent exposure in front of daughters in the bedroom and in front of daughters’ friends in the living room
• exposure to minor daughters in bedroom can be public sexual indecency, where “public” was not defined by statute but court construed it to mean “a place where the actor might reasonably expect his conduct to be viewed by another”
• public-indecency statute’s proscriptions can be committed in one’s own home

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 1998-01-27· cited 39×
• Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-09-11· cited 35×
• State v. Sandoval
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1993-07-29· cited 23×
• State of Maine v. Andrew J. Legassie
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2017-10-05· cited 15×
• United States v. Shaffer
  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 1997-05-15· cited 15×
• Wisneski v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2007-04-18· cited 14×
• United States v. Graham
  Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 2002-01-30· cited 13×
• Wisneski v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2006-07-12· cited 11×
• United States v. Graham
  Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals· 2000-11-30· cited 2×
• State v. Tagge
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2019-05-09· cited 1×
• Michael Steven Cunningham v. State of Alaska
  Court of Appeals of Alaska· 2023-08-25