# If a tree falls on a naked guy in a forest, and no one's around . . . **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [August 20, 2009, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063 "2009-08-20T12:52:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/1 "2009-08-20T12:52:21Z")
> [@](#): > > So in some places you could be convicted for being naked where others might have seen you even if nobody did. [link](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2887/is-it-indecent-exposure-if-im-visibly-naked-while-on-my-own-private-property) I don’t get it. If nobody saw the guy, why was he being charged with a crime? Did he go into work the next day and say “Man, I was so naked in public last night!” or what? ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_of\_Lucan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dbc845/32.png) [@Michael\_of\_Lucan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_of_Lucan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/2 "2009-08-20T13:25:42Z")
So what you mean is, is it crap to be bare in the woods …😃 ---
**Author:** ![RThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@RThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RThomas)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/3 "2009-08-20T13:52:34Z")
I am sure that I broke all the Indecent Exposure laws when as a lad in High School P.E., we all stripped naked (boys with boys, girls with girls) to take our showers. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/4 "2009-08-20T14:31:23Z")
Here is a link to the staff report: [Can I be charged with indecent exposure if I stay on my own private property? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2887/is-it-indecent-exposure-if-im-visibly-naked-while-on-my-own-private-property) ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/5 "2009-08-20T15:29:08Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I don’t get it. If nobody saw the guy, why was he being charged with a crime? Did he go into work the next day and say “Man, I was so naked in public last night!” or what? There was a news article not long ago where a NY Subway cop stripped naked and walk around an empty subway platform at 4am. He was apparently joking around with his buddies. One of the security video cameras picked up the whole incident, and one of the charges brought against him was indecent exposure. ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/6 "2009-08-20T16:46:20Z")
Since there are two threads on the same staff report, I’ll merge RThomas’s into the earlier one started by tim314. bibliophage moderator CSR ---
**Author:** ![Stentor\_2.5](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc8723/32.png) [@Stentor\_2.5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stentor_2.5)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/7 "2009-08-20T17:19:23Z")
> [@RThomas](#): > > I am sure that I broke all the Indecent Exposure laws > when as a lad in High School P.E., we all stripped naked (boys with boys, girls with girls) to take our showers. Showers and locker rooms aren’t considered public places. No policeman would arrest, and no judge would convict. I think this discussion is missing the point that even if you get naked while nobody is there, a chance still exists that someone may come along. To that extent, I don’t think “nobody was around” is a viable defense. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/8 "2009-08-20T17:30:19Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > [link](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2887/is-it-indecent-exposure-if-im-visibly-naked-while-on-my-own-private-property) > > I don’t get it. If nobody saw the guy, why was he being charged with a crime? Did he go into work the next day and say “Man, I was so naked in public last night!” or what? 1. As \*\*qazwart \*\* notes, modern cases involve surveillance cameras. 2. The case I cited only reviewed an indictment. An indictment is supposed to inform the defendant about what he’s been charged with. It’s a formal requirement. The defendant claimed that the indictment was insufficient because it basically just quoted the statute. It said: “defendant did unlawfully, wilfully, and designedly make an open, indecent exposure of his person in a public place, to-wit, a public highway in Winneshiek county, in the State of Iowa in the presence of one Agnes Haugen, a female then and there being, the said defendant Richard Martin and Agnes Haugen not being married to each other, and each of them being unmarried.” The defendant raised some objections tto the indictment, mostly based on the common law requirements for indictments, but the state had passed some new laws. So the Iowa courts had held that “an indictment which charges an offense in the language of the statute is sufficient in all cases where the statutory definition states the material facts constituting the unlawful act.” The court said that the indictment met the test. But that’s all technical legal stuff. At any rate, the court had the opportunity to review the case because somebody saw something. It could be that the police arrived to discover the couple buttoning up, but more likely, the state just saw the objection to the indictment as misguided and wanted to make a stand. I think it’s likely that Ms. Haugen saw the defendant’s private parts. 😉 Here’s the case: > [@](#): > > THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. RICHARD MARTIN. Appellant. > > [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] > > SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, DES MOINES > > 125 Iowa 715; 101 N.W. 637; 1904 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 559 > December, 1904, Decided > > JUDGES: WEAVER, J. > > OPINION BY: WEAVER > > OPINION > > [\*716] [\*\*637] WEAVER, J.–The indictment charges that defendant did “unlawfully, wilfully, and designedly make an open, indecent exposure of his person in a public place, to-wit, a public highway in Winneshiek county, in the State of Iowa in the presence of one Agnes Haugen, a female then and there being, the said defendant Richard Martin and Agnes Haugen not being married to each other, and each of them being unmarried.” By exception to the instructions given to the jury, and by motion in arrest of judgment, the appellant attacked the sufficiency of the indictment, and the question thus raised is the principal one upon which a reversal is demanded. > > It is said the indictment does not charge that any one saw the indecent exhibition, or that it was made with the intent that any one should [\*\*\*2] see it, or that the exposure was made under circumstances when it was possible that any one should see it, or that it was in public, or without the consent of the woman named. It is also said that the allegations may be literally true, and yet the appellant and the woman may have been miles apart, and may have been ignorant of one another’s presence upon the public road; that defendant may have been entirely alone, or the alleged exhibition may have been in the darkness of night and without evil intent. It is to be conceded that, if this indictment [\*717] is to be construed with all the technical strictness which mark the earlier authorities, some of the criticisms made upon it might be held well founded. But the technical exactness of the common law, which had its origin at a time when the accused could not be heard by counsel or testify as a witness in his own behalf, has been to a great extent removed by statutory provisions, and by the general tendency of the courts to disregard objections which go to matters of mere form and not of substantial right. Our statute, [\*\*638] so far as it is here applicable, provides that the indictment shall be held sufficient if the act [\*\*\*3] charged is “stated in ordinary and concise language with such certainty and in such manner, as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended and the court to pronounce judgment according to law upon conviction.” Code, section 5289. It also provides that no indictment shall be held insufficient because of any matter “which was formerly deemed a defect or imperfection but which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.” Code, section 5290. See, also, State v. Shunka, 116 Iowa 206, 89 N.W. 977; State v. Fisher, 106 Iowa 658, 77 N.W. 456; State v. Thompson, 19 Iowa 299; State v. Johnson, 26 Iowa 407. Acting upon this principle, we have uniformly held that an indictment which charges an offense in the language of the statute is sufficient in all cases where the statutory definition states the material facts constituting the unlawful act State v. Shaw, 35 Iowa 575; State v. Smith, 46 Iowa 670; State v. Curran, 51 Iowa 112, 49 N.W. 1006; State v. Brewer, 53 Iowa 735, 6 N.W. 62; State v. Whalen, 98 Iowa 662, 68 N.W. 554; [\*\*\*4] State v. Porter, 105 Iowa 677, 75 N.W. 519, and the indictment before us follows this rule. That a charge of indecent exposure falls within this class of cases was expressly held by us in State v. Bauguess, 106 Iowa 107, 76 N.W. 508. The indictment there approved charged that the defendant “did wilfully, unlawfully, and designedly make an open, indecent, and obscene exposure of his person in a public place, to-wit, at or near Pine street, on the north side [\*718] of Sixth street, in the city of Fort Madison.” This description is certainly not less general or uncertain than is contained in the indictment before us. No intelligent person reading this charge can have any doubt as to the meaning of the words here employed, and common decency and propriety forbid the setting forth of disgusting details which are merely evidentiary in character. > > The objection made, that the indictment does not show that the woman saw the indecent exposure of defendant’s person, or that such exposure was without her consent, cannot be sustained. It will be observed that the crime as defined by the statute does not require that the exposure shall be made in the actual [\*\*\*5] sight of any person, and in the Bauguess Case we expressed the view that “if a case should be made by confession, corroborated by circumstances, a defendant might properly be convicted of this offense, although no person witnessed the indecent act.” It does not follow from this rule that one who uncovers his person in the privacy of his own apartment, or other place where there is no reason to suppose that his act may offend the sensibilities of others, is guilty of a crime. The words “indecent exposure” clearly imply that the act is either in the actual presence and sight of others, or is in such a place or under such circumstances that the exhibition is liable to be seen by others, and is presumably made for that purpose, or with reckless and criminal disregard of the decencies of life. A person, if so inclined, may dress himself in nothing more substantial than the innocence of Eden, provided he does not “expose” himself in that condition. The exposure becomes “indecent” only when he indulges in such practices at a time and place where, as a reasonable person, he knows, or ought to know, his act is open to the observation of others. Van Houten v. State, 46 N.J.L. 16 (50 Am. Rep. 397). [\*\*\*6] See, also, Laney v. State, 105 Ala. 105 (17 So. 107); Yancy v. State, 63 Ala. 141; State v. Roper, 18 N.C. 208. > > [\*719] Neither is there any merit in the contention of the appellant that the act charged is not alleged to have been done without the consent of the woman in whose presence the exposure is said to have been made. Assuming the exposure to have been made, the consent of the woman would not take away or affect its criminal character. HN4Go to this Headnote in the case.The offense charged is not against the woman merely, but against organized society–the State–and is none the less heinous because of the consent of the observer. People v. Bixby, 67 Barb. 221 (s. c. 4 Hun 636). We think the indictment sufficient, and that the motion in arrest based thereon was properly overruled. > > We find no error in the instructions given by the court. It was the theory of the defense that at the time of the alleged offense defendant was so badly intoxicated as to be incapable of a criminal intent. The instruction given upon this point is perhaps not so full as is ordinarily given, but we think it substantially embodies the rule as approved [\*\*\*7] by this court. State v. Donovan, 61 Iowa 369, 16 N.W. 206; State v. Conners, 95 Iowa 485, 64 N.W. 295; State v. Desmond, 109 Iowa 72, 80 N.W. 214; State v. Pasnau, 118 Iowa 501, 92 N.W. 682. > > Without further prolonging the discussion, we have to say that after a careful examination of the entire record we find no prejudicial error, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/9 "2009-08-20T17:42:10Z")
And here is the \*Bauguess \*case, which is cited in _Martin_. > [@](#): > > STATE OF IOWA v. A. M. BAUGUESS, Appellant. > > [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] > > SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, DES MOINES > > 106 Iowa 107; 76 N.W. 508; 1898 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 188 > October, 1898, Decided > > OPINION > > [\*108] [\*\*508] WATERMAN, J.–I. The only matters seriously urged relate to the sufficiency of the [\*\*509] indictment. The material portion of that instrument is as follows: “That A. M. Bauguess, on the 28th day of June, 1897, at the township of Madison, in the county of Lee and state aforesaid, did willfully, unlawfully, and designedly make an open, indecent, and obscene exposure of his person in a public place, to-wit, at or near Pine street, on the north side of Sixth street, in the city of Fort Madison,” etc. > > II. The first point sought to be made by appellant is that the indictment is fatally defective in not particularly specifying the part of the body that was exposed. It is said that no crime is charged, since the offense is not described, but only named. The indictment was found [\*\*\*2] under section 4012, Code 1873. The offense is designated as “lewdness,” and the different forms of lewdness that are made punishable are described. The portion of the section that has application here is in these terms: “If any man or woman, married or unmarried, is guilty of open and gross lewdness and designedly make open and indecent or obscene exposure of his or her person or of the person of another, every such person shall be punished,” etc. The offense, we think, is here both named and described. The phrase, “an indecent exposure of the person,” in our opinion, has a well-settled and commonly accepted signification. It means the exhibition of such parts of the person as modesty or a sense of self-respect requires to be kept usually covered. [\*109] Appellant argues that, so far as appears, the exposure might have been of the hand or foot. But the charge is that it was an indecent and obscene exhibition, and this precludes any such idea as that suggested. It has been repeatedly held that an indictment is sufficient if it charges the offense in the language of the statute, when that shows the material facts which constitute the offense. State v. Whalen, 98 Iowa 662, 68 N.W. 554, [\*\*\*3] and cases cited. See, also, the more recent case of State v. Porter, 105 Iowa 677, 75 N.W. 519. It is thought by counsel for appellant that this case falls within the rule announced in State v. Butcher, 79 Iowa 110, 44 N.W. 239, but we think not. The distinction appears clear. In the latter case the offense, while named in the statute, was not described. The crime there charged was “willfully and unlawfully interrupting and disturbing a public school.” This language is evidently not intended as a description of the forbidden act. One might “interrupt and disturb” a school by writing threatening letters to a timid or nervous teacher, and yet, we take it, such acts would not be violative of this section. It was therefore held that the acts constituting the offense should be set out in the information, in order that it might appear whether they amounted to a crime. In the statute governing the case at bar, as we have already said, the offense is not only named, but described, and the indictment follows the statute. This is sufficient. See, in addition to the decisions cited from this court, State v. Griffin, 43 Tex. 538; State v. Hazle, 20 Ark. 156. [\*\*\*4] > III. Another objection made to the indictment is that it does not charge to whom the defendant exposed his person. We know of no rule requiring this to be done. Indeed, we feel confident that, if a case should be made on a confession corroborated by circumstances, a defendant might properly be convicted of this offense, although no person witnessed the indecent act. > > IV. It is conceded that the instructions, as abstract propositions of law, are correct; that if the indictment properly charges the offense they should be sustained. But it is contended [\*110] that they contain elements that are not found in the offense as described in the indictment, and therefore they are erroneous. We have held the indictment sufficient, and a careful reading of the charge convinces us that it is unobjectionable.–AFFIRMED. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/10 "2009-08-21T18:36:18Z")
> [@](#): > > No intelligent person reading this charge can have any doubt as to the meaning of the words here employed, and common decency and propriety forbid the setting forth of disgusting details which are merely evidentiary in character. Disgusting? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/11 "2009-08-21T19:03:48Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Disgusting? Have you seen the swimsuits they wore back then? [http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/content/view/610/84/](http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/content/view/610/84/) [http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/1900-1905\_SS/1900-1905.html](http://www.bikiniscience.com/chronology/1900-1905_SS/1900-1905.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/12 "2009-08-21T20:16:21Z")
> [@Michael\_of\_Lucan](#): > > So what you mean is, is it crap to be bare in the woods …😃 No, but it is pants… ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-a-tree-falls-on-a-naked-guy-in-a-forest-and-no-ones-around/507063/13 "2009-08-24T02:09:46Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > There was a news article not long ago where a NY Subway cop stripped naked and walk around an empty subway platform at 4am. He was apparently joking around with his buddies. One of the security video cameras picked up the whole incident, and one of the charges brought against him was indecent exposure. Just how well hung would he have to be for it to have been decent exposure?