State of South Dakota v. Richard Aca Moss

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed Richard Aca Moss's conviction for indecent exposure. The court held that the statute did not require actual knowledge that a present victim would be annoyed, offended, or alarmed, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient. It also held that Moss was not entitled to a jury instruction concerning the uncharged offense of public indecency because it was not a lesser-included offense and was not material to his defense.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. SDCL 22-24-1.2 does not require the defendant to have actual knowledge that a particular victim or witness who is present will be offended, annoyed, or alarmed; it requires awareness of circumstances under which the exposure would likely produce that result. The detectives could also qualify as members of the public and victim/witnesses for purposes of the statute.
2. Moss was not entitled to an instruction on public indecency because public indecency was not a lesser-included offense of indecent exposure and a finding of guilt on public indecency would not constitute a legal defense to the charged offense. The magistrate court therefore did not abuse its discretion in refusing the instruction.
3. The Court declined to review the claim because the trial court's ruling on the proposed argument was not final and Moss did not identify a place in the record where he was later prevented from making the argument.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Moss's conviction for indecent exposure under SDCL 22-24-1.2.
2. Whether the magistrate court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury that Moss's conduct could constitute the related but uncharged offense of public indecency.
3. Whether Moss preserved for appellate review his claim that he should have been permitted to argue in closing that the State could have charged public indecency.

Disposition

affirmed