Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nunez v. Holder

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 17, 2010No. 06-70219Published

1DissentBybee, Circuit Judge

California punishes persons who “willfully and lewdly ... expose [their] private parts” in a public place or in a place where there are unwilling persons. CAL. PE*1139NAL CODE § 314(1). The California Supreme Court has read § 314 to reach only one who “intentionally direct[s] attention to his genitals for sexual purposes.” In re Smith, 7 Cal.3d 362, 102 Cal.Rptr. 335, 497 P.2d 807, 810 (1972). In Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, the Supreme Court told us that to find that California’s indecent exposure statute is a crime outside the generic definition of a crime involving moral turpitude “requires more…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Gonzales v. Duenas-AlvarezSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  4. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Cerezo v. MukaseyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008

40 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