Commonwealth v. Rodriguez
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcEWEN, Judge
The appellant was convicted of indecent exposure and corrupting the morals of a minor. I concur with the majority that the Commonwealth did not prove the charge of corrupting the morals of a minor. I would, however, affirm the conviction of the appellant upon the charge of indecent exposure and, therefore, dissent from that portion of the majority opinion.
A person may be convicted of indecent exposure “if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire of himself or any other person other than his spouse, he exposes his genitals under circumstances in which he knows his conduct is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. StoffanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Commonwealth v. FreemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.