People v. Carbajal
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RYLAARSDAM, Acting P. J.
We have been asked to decide whether defendant Nicolas Limón Carbajal’s conviction for indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1) is valid where there is no evidence that anyone actually saw his naked genitals. We conclude it is, based on circumstantial evidence that actual exposure occurred in the presence of other persons. We arrive at this conclusion after determining that visual observation of the exposed genitals is not an element of the offense. Further, we disagree with defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give a special…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- People v. OchoaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. WaderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. OchoaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- In Re NewbernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- People v. MezaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. CastanedaNevada Supreme Court · 2010
- CORTES MEDINABoard of Immigration Appeals · 2013
- Felipe Betansos v. William BarrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- State v. VarsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
- People v. HonanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.