DocketNumber: C.A. No. N3-98-0325A
Judges: <bold><underline>WILLIAMS, J.</underline></bold>
Filed Date: 1/22/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
It is alleged that on October 29, 1998 Ms. Colleen K. Smith called the Middletown police to report that a man had exposed its genitals to her on two separate occasions. The police observed a man fitting the description given by Ms. Smith jogging through the parking lot of a Middletown establishment and detained him for positive identification. The man that the police detained was the defendant and he was identified by Ms. Smith as the individual about whom she had complained. The defendant was then arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct to wit Indecent Exposure, in violation of 1956 §
The defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss, arguing that the statute under which he is charged requires that the State provide more that one witness to whom the defendant allegedly exposed himself. Section
While it is well settled that the Court's role is not to "look behind" the clear and unambiguous" words of a statute, it is equally established that Courts must not simply read statutory language literally where so reading will yield an absurd result.General Accident Insurance Company of America v. Cuddy,
Turning to the instant matter, the legislative history of this section lacks any guidance regarding the legislature's intent regarding the number of witnesses necessary in order to charge an individual with indecent exposure. But in searching the United States Supreme Court Digest for guidance on indecent exposure, one is referred to 67 C.J.S. § 10-11. Section 11 sets forth the elements of this offense with particularity.1
Of most interest to this Court is the expression that such exposure in a public place occurs before others. Reading further, the text in C.J.S. states, "the offense of indecent exposure does not depend upon the number of people present, and an exposure to one or more persons is sufficient" Citing State v. Pallman, 248 A.2d 589, 592; Byous v. State,
It is clear that G.L. §
It appears that to date, Rhode Island Courts have not contemplated the defendant's argument that the statute requires more than one witness to an act of indecent exposure. Therefore, in deciding this motion, the Court bases its analysis on the aforementioned principals of statutory interpretation and authorities. For these reasons, it is this Court's opinion that subscription to the defendant's position would yield an absurd result not intended by the Rhode Island legislature. To borrow the words of the Honorable Justice Florence Murray, "if the Court has not interpreted the statute in a manner consistent with legislative intent . . . further societal response is the exclusive prerogative of the Legislature." Pizza Hut of AmericaInc. v. Louis H. Pastore, Jr.,
Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Denied.
Byous v. State , 121 Ga. App. 654 ( 1970 )
Messina v. State , 212 Md. 602 ( 1957 )
Brennan v. Kirby , 529 A.2d 633 ( 1987 )
Matter of Falstaff Brewing Corp. , 637 A.2d 1047 ( 1994 )
Berthiaume v. SCHOOL COM. OF CITY OF WOONSOCKET , 121 R.I. 243 ( 1979 )
State v. King , 268 N.C. 711 ( 1966 )
Labbadia v. State , 513 A.2d 18 ( 1986 )
Gott v. Norberg , 417 A.2d 1352 ( 1980 )
Pizza Hut of America, Inc. v. Pastore , 519 A.2d 592 ( 1987 )
General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. Cuddy , 658 A.2d 13 ( 1995 )
Beaudoin v. Petit , 122 R.I. 469 ( 1979 )
In Re RJP , 445 A.2d 286 ( 1982 )
Great American Nursing Centers, Inc. v. Norberg , 439 A.2d 249 ( 1981 )
Nolan v. Representative Council , 73 R.I. 498 ( 1948 )
East Greenwich Fire District v. Penn Central Co. , 111 R.I. 303 ( 1973 )
In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor , 504 A.2d 456 ( 1986 )