DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Peery, 28 N.W.2d 851.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Bradley D. Fordyce, Minn. 2023
    –55 (Minn. 1947) (involving a naked defendant who accidentally forgot to pull the shades to his dormitory window and reversing his conviction for indecent exposure), and State v. Stevenson , n.5 (Minn. 2003) (explaining that a person who swims nude in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area would no
  • Minn. 2022
    that impacts the certainty of the observatio n—not the person’s subjective intent”) (emphasis omitted); (involving a naked defendant who accidentally forgot to pull down the shades in his dorm room), (involving a naked defendant standing in the doorway calling out “[h]i, girls”).
  • Bradley D. Fordyce, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    (explaining that the “relevant question” in determining intent to be indecent is whether the defendant’s conduct “was so likely to be observed ‘that it must be reasonably presumed that it was intended to be witnessed’” ()).
  • A19-1113 A19-1115 A19-1116 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    The Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that although the prostitution statute does not include a statement of intent, it can be inferred from the language that “it is the publicly visible nature of much prostitution activity that prompts criminal enforcement.” Id.; (stating in context of indecent - exposure case that an act is “indecent” when it is “open to the observation of others”).
  • State v. Jama 923 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2019
  • State v. Jama 923 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2019
    I. Jama contends that our interpretation of the indecent-exposure statute in State v. Peery , 224 Minn. 346 , added a specific-intent requirement to the offense.
  • State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State v. Jama 908 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Appellant argues that the inclusion of the word "willful" in the indecent exposure statute and the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in State v. Peery , 224 Minn. 346 , make indecent exposure a specific-intent crime and that the district court's failure to include the "deliberate intent to be lewd" language of Peery in its instructions to the jury constitutes plain error.
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    acted “with the deliberate intent of being indecent or lewd.” d 235, 240 (Minn. 2003) (quoting State v. Peery , 224 Minn. 346, 351, ).
  • State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Wolhowe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Wolhowe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 351
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Nickolas Mousel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    To prevail in a prosecution for indecent exposure, the state must show that the charged conduct “was committed with the deliberate intent of being indecent or lewd.” (quoting State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 351, ).
  • State v. White 692 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. White 692 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Referring to its decision in State v. Peery, 224 Minn. *752 346 , the supreme court held that “[o]ur concept of public was not based on the privacy expectations of the defendant but on the likelihood that the conduct would be witnessed by others.” Id.
  • State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Stevenson 656 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2003
    4 To prevail in a prosecution for indecent exposure, the state must show that the charged conduct “was committed with the deliberate intent of being indecent or lewd.” State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 351 , see also State v. Prince, 296 Minn. 490, 491 , (following Peery).
  • State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 351
  • State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Duncan 605 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 351
  • State v. Schramel 581 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Schramel 581 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    The court found this argument to be meritless because under State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346 , one is not guilty where the exposure is “in the privacy of [one’s] own apartment, or other place where there is no reason to suppose that [one’s] act may offend the sensibilities of others * * * .” C.S.K, d at 377 (emphasis in original)(quoting Peery, 224 Minn. at 351 , d at 85
  • In Re the Welfare of C.S.K. 438 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • In Re the Welfare of C.S.K. 438 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 351
  • State v. Prince 206 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Prince 206 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1973
    ht most favorable to the verdict, established that defendant stood completely naked in the doorway of.his home and attracted the attention of three passing high school girls by saying, “Hi, girls.” The evidence that defendant endeavored to attract the attention of passers-by while standing nude in plain sight of the passers-by was clearly sufficient, under principles enunciated in State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346 , to justify the verdict.