we were never able to establish whether he was convicted of petty theft the government documents state that he was charged his testimony indicated that he paid a fine and i never saw documents indicating that he was convicted i would questions that are troubling to us so if i may respectfully suggest this i think it's in your best interest to try your best to respond to what we're asking and i know you want to talk about a particular thing but we may already have decided in our mind what is going on with that i'm not saying we have in this particular case but i hope you'll indulge just by answering the question your best you can i guess that's really what this is all about so i simply i don't have any record of conviction i don't know  i would assume that he was i'd like to ask you specific but does you know what the topic you want to talk about and that's is this can you identify any california case in which there's been a conviction under california's indecent exposure california case where someone has been convicted where there has not been a showing of sexual motivation or intent i don't know if one of the closest cases in the morning case which was but i believe that was not that was the california sexual nature here with respect counsel i just i appreciate your efforts for your client here but you're not siding with any cases that that come down where you come down you know there are no cases and so basically you're expressing a personal opinion i'm sure well considered but it is it just seems like you know we've got reams of b i m cases we've got all kinds of california cases and they all seem to say the exact o ce exact opposite of what you're saying so let's you have some other authority we're really left with the point that you really can't challenge it can i just for a moment go to a second subject that you raised in your brief  have the facts presented for his case i understand but what prejudice did you suffer well your honor the court local rules state that all motions must be filed fifteen days before the court hearing and in this case the  government attorney filed her motion to pre term it the afternoon before the eight thirty am hearing and the judge trends in motion understand that you know we deal all the time with with issues some constitutional some statutory were all the rules were followed but usually in order to reverse a case in matters like that there has to be a showing of harm if it's constitutional you've got a sh there's no harm beyond a reasonable doubt but we don't reach that level here so my question to you is given the fact that your client was convicted of this crime which would bar what we're talking about even if you had been able to argue w that everything's really going to turn on how we decide the question of indecent exposure all right the court eric marshall or the attorney general because petitioners conviction had the requirement that it was both lewd and willful we believe that it is a crime involving moral turpitude under the statute and that therefore willful portion in the lewdness requires that the conduct is to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal gratification or affront we believe that in this case that constitutes the necessary