Court Opinion

ID: 9742286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:10:06.213158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:16.195197
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority’s holding as to Counts I, II and III, but respectfully dissent to the holding as to Count IV.
The acts charged in Count IV, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, do constitute the crime of obscene performance.
The applicable statute reads, in relevant part:
“A person who knowingly or intentionally engages in ... any obscene performance commits a Class A misdemean- or. ...”
IND.CODE § 35-49-3-2 (1988 Ed.).
There is no requirement in this statute that the obscene performance take place in “public”. It applies to those obscene performances in “private settings” as well.
The definition of “performance” reads as follows:
“ ‘Performance’ means any play, motion picture, dance, or other exhibition or presentation, whether pictured, animated, or live, performed before an audience of one 1 or more persons.” [Emphasis added.].
IND.CODE § 35-49-1-7 (1988 Ed.).
Obscene performances are not restricted by Indiana statutes to only those performances of a theatrical, show, or entertainment nature.
The Court in Fultz v. State (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 624, defined “audience”. The defendant in Fultz acted in an obscene manner in his home in front of his window. The audience was two neighbors who inadvertently observed defendant’s behavior. The trial court stated that the term “audience” is a common term which does not have a definition unique to law. 473 N.E.2d at 629. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, (G.& M. Merriam Co.1976) defines audience as “... 3b: a group or assembly of spectators.... ” It further defines spectator as “1: one that looks on or beholds_” [Emphasis added.]. Id.
It is clear that the defendant’s sexual acts with his girlfriend constituted an obscene performance. It is also clear that the victim, defendant’s five-year-old son, constituted an audience to this obscene performance. There was evidence. that the victim was ordered by the defendant to observe these acts. It does not matter that this performance took place in defendant’s home since there is no statutory requirement that the acts be done publicly.
Nor does this Court face a right to privacy violation by applying the statute to those obscene performances done in private settings. The Florida Supreme Court in Chesebrough v. State (1971), Fla., 255 So.2d 675, was confronted with a right to privacy argument by a husband and wife who were arrested for having sexual relations in the presence of a child in their home. Defendants alleged, in part, that the statute prohibiting such conduct before a child, violated their right to privacy. The court held that the defendants’ behavior was not protected by the Constitution. The “right to privacy does not contemplate the privilege of engaging in sexual intercourse at such times and places as the parties may desire and in the presence of others.” Id. at 679.
If the legislature had intended that the obscene performance statute not apply to those obscene performances done in a private setting, it could have so limited the *1090statute. Likewise, the legislature could have confined the statute to only those obscene performances of a theatrical, show, or entertainment nature. However, the legislature did not restrict the statute in these ways and thus, it applies to obscene performances in private settings. The defendant’s acts constituted the crime of obscene performance.
The trial court should be affirmed as to Count IV.