Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Peery

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 18, 1947No. Nos. 34,360, 34,380Published

1DissentPeterson, Justice

Because I think that the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of intentional indecent exposure, I dissent.

There is no dispute concerning certain facts such as those that defendant was nude in the room in question under such circumstances as to be visible through the windows to casual passers-by on the sidewalk outside; that the room is on the first floor at the northwest corner of the building; that there is a window on the north side opening onto the street lying to the north; that there is a window on the west side opening onto the sidewalk; that the bottom sills of the windows are…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State v. SweeneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
  2. State v. SauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
  3. Commonwealth v. BishopMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  4. State v. MartinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  5. Commonwealth v. BroadlandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API