Court of Appeals Rules Pattern Jury Instruction Inadequate in Felony Indecent Exposure Case

Last month, the court of appeals ruled that the pattern jury instruction for felony indecent exposure was inadequate given the facts of the case before it. The case is State v. Hoyle. Facts. A woman and her young son had just arrived home. She was unloading groceries and he was playing near a tree in the front yard. A man pulled up in his car and engaged the woman in conversation, first asking for directions, then seeking to work on the house. The man offered her his business card, and when she approached the car to accept it, she saw that he “had his hand on his exposed penis.” She stumbled back and fell down, then ran into the house with her son, who had been playing about 20 feet away. The man drove off, laughing. Procedural history. The woman was able to identify the man. He was charged with misdemeanor indecent exposure for exposing himself in the presence of the woman, and felony indecent exposure for exposing himself in the presence of the child. See G.S. 14-190.9 (defining several indecent exposure offenses). He was convicted of both offenses and appealed, focusing on the felony. Majority opinion. The defendant first argued that there was insufficient evidence that the exposure was “in the presence of” the child. The parties agreed that the State was not required to prove that the child had seen the man’s genitals. See, e.g., State v. Fusco, 136 N.C. App. 268 (1999) (indecent exposure requires exposure in the [...]