Court Opinion

ID: 9897909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:26:59.173941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:18.045842
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 STATE OF WASHINGTON,                           No. 84366-4-I

                            Appellant,
                                                DIVISION ONE
               v.

 COREY JUSTIN THOMPSON,                         ORDER GRANTING MOTION
                                                TO PUBLISH
                           Respondent.

      Appellant, State of Washington, moved for publication of the opinion filed

on August 28, 2023. Respondent, Corey Justin Thompson, filed an answer to the

motion, stating that the respondent takes no position on the motion to publish. A

panel of the court has considered the motion and has determined that the motion

to publish should be granted.

      Now, therefore, it is hereby

      ORDERED that the motion to publish is granted.
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
                                               No. 84366-4-I
                           Appellant,
                                               DIVISION ONE
               v.
                                               PUBLISHED OPINION
 COREY JUSTIN THOMPSON,

                           Respondent.

       DÍAZ, J. — The State alleges that three 12-year-old girls playing in an

apartment complex playground saw Corey Thompson “touching his privates while

looking at them” from his own apartment.          One of the girls vividly described

Thompson’s erect—but clothed—penis, and all three described him masturbating

or touching himself over his clothing. The State charged Thompson with felony

indecent exposure under RCW 9A.88.010, and Thompson twice moved to dismiss

the information, arguing nudity is a required element of the crime. The trial court

eventually granted the motion, finding that the law is unconstitutionally vague as

applied to Thompson, who would not have known that his actions were prohibited.

The State appeals. We reverse and vacate the trial court order dismissing the

information, and remand the matter for further proceedings.

  Citations and pincites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.
No. 84366-4-I/2

                                   I.     FACTS

       In 2019, Thompson lived in an apartment complex in Mount Vernon, which

abutted an open-air central yard and playground. Thompson’s apartment had a

sliding glass door with a direct view of the playground. Three minors, T.F., H.F.,

and M.R. (all under 14 years old), played on the playground and could see inside

Thompson’s apartment. At some point between May 1, 2019 and July 31, 2019,

all three saw Thompson wearing gym shorts and a t-shirt, “touching his privates

and looking at them.”

       Specifically, T.F. saw Thompson sitting in a chair in the doorway of the

sliding glass door, “touching his privates.” T.F. described “seeing it but not seeing”

Thompson’s penis, which she said was “circular and long,” though fully clothed.

T.F., H.F., and M.R. all said Thompson was rubbing his penis in “stroking motions”

with his hand over his clothing while watching them on the playground.

       After the children reported Thompson’s actions, the Mount Vernon Police

investigated. The State subsequently determined that a court had previously

convicted Thompson of violating RCW 9A.88.010. In January 2020, the State

charged Thompson with one count of felony indecent exposure (second or

subsequent offense) under RCW 9A.88.010(1) and (2)(c).

       In February 2022, Thompson brought a motion to dismiss. 1 Thompson

1 This was Thompson’s second motion to dismiss.        In August 2021, Thompson
moved to dismiss the charges for the first time. At oral argument, Thompson
argued that, under State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346, 729 P.2d 48 (1986), there
was insufficient evidence that he committed the crime of indecent exposure
because the children saw “a fully clothed man with his hand outside of his clothing,”
adding that the “State is arguing that clothes is exposure. The defense is just
arguing that exposed is not. That’s it.” The first trial judge denied Thompson’s
                                          2
No. 84366-4-I/3

argued that RCW 9A.88.010 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution and article I,

section 3 of our state’s constitution.     He contended that the statute did “not

sufficiently define the proscribed conduct so an ordinary person can understand

the prohibition,” insisting “the meaning of exposure means that it’s open and that

it’s visible, that it’s on display” and Thompson was fully clothed.

       The court granted the motion, finding that on his “reading of the statute [and]

of the cases [] there has to be some exposure of some sort.” The court held that

“the question under the statute is did an exposure occur . . . it doesn’t appear that

that happened.”

       The State timely appeals.

                                  II.    ANALYSIS

       We conclude the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to

Thompson because his behavior (of allegedly masturbating in front of children

while fully clothed) is an “obscene exposure” under RCW 9A.88.010, despite his

lack of nudity.

A.     Law

       1.     Unconstitutional Vagueness

       Washington has long recognized the basic principle that a criminal statute

Knapstad motion, noting “there isn’t any sort of definition . . . there has to be a line
someplace, but the legislature has not indicated what that law is. Given the
uncontested facts for the purposes of this motion, this could potentially meet that.”
Although Thompson brought this first motion under the Fourteenth Amendment as
well, the briefing, argument and ruling all revolved around the Knapstad analysis.
Thus, we will refer to this first motion as Thompson’s Knapstad motion.
                                           3
No. 84366-4-I/4

must give fair warning of the conduct that makes it a crime. State v. Galbreath, 69

Wn.2d 664, 667, 419 P.2d 800 (1966). That standard, i.e., fair warning, protects

individuals from being held criminally accountable for conduct which a person of

ordinary intelligence could not reasonably understand is prohibited.             City of

Spokane v. Douglass, 115 Wn.2d 171, 178, 795 P.2d 693 (1990). “Accordingly,

the test for whether the penal statute is sufficiently definite is common intelligence.”

Id. at 179.

       Stated   otherwise,    a   defendant     challenging   a   statute   as    being

unconstitutionally vague must show that the statute either (1) does not define the

criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand

what conduct is proscribed or (2) does not provide ascertainable standards of guilt

to protect against arbitrary enforcement. 2 State v. Peters, 17 Wn. App. 2d 522,

538, 486 P.3d 925, review denied, 198 Wn.2d 1014 (2021).

       A statute can be challenged as being facially vague or vague as applied.3

Id. “If the statute does not involve First Amendment rights, then the vagueness

challenge is to be evaluated by examining the statute as applied under the

particular facts of the case.” State v. Watson, 160 Wn.2d 1, 6, 154 P.3d 909 (2007)

(quoting State v. Coria, 120 Wn.2d 156, 163, 839 P.2d 890 (1992)). To evaluate

a challenge to a statute for being vague as applied, we look at the actual conduct

of the party challenging the statute, not to any hypothetical situation at the

2 Because Thompson did not cross-appeal the trial court’s decision to not reach

the latter (whether the statute lent itself to arbitrary enforcement), we do not
address or reach this prong of the vagueness analysis.
3 At no point has Thompson challenged that the statute is vague on its face.

                                           4
No. 84366-4-I/5

periphery of the rule’s scope. Peters, 17 Wn. App. 2d at 538.

       “‘This is because while a statute may be vague or potentially vague as to

some conduct, the statute may be constitutionally applied to one whose conduct

clearly falls within the constitutional core of the statute.’” State v. Maciolek, 101

Wn.2d 259, 263, 676 P.2d 996 (1984) (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting

State v. Hood, 24 Wn. App. 155, 158, 600 P.2d 636 (1979)).

       “[A] statute meets constitutional requirements ‘[i]f persons of ordinary

intelligence can understand what the ordinance proscribes, notwithstanding some

possible areas of disagreement.’” Watson, 160 Wn.2d at 7 (alteration in original)

(quoting Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 179). Even if there is a disagreement about the

meaning of a statute, “‘vagueness in the constitutional sense is not mere

uncertainty.’” Id. (quoting Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 179). Thus, due process does

not require impossible standards of linguistic certainty because “‘[s]ome degree of

vagueness is inherent in the use of our language.’” Peters, 17 Wn. App. 2d at 538

(quoting Smith, 130 Wn. App. 721, 726, 123 P.3d 896 (2005)).

       Moreover, “[b]ecause of the inherent vagueness of language, citizens may

need to utilize . . . court rulings to clarify the meaning of a statute.” Watson, 160

Wn.2d at 8. Such sources are considered “‘presumptively available to all citizens.’”

Id. (quoting Douglass, 115 Wn.2d at 180).

       Finally, a statute is presumed to be constitutional, and the party challenging

its validity must prove that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peters, 17 Wn. App. 2d at 538.               “The standard for finding a statute

unconstitutionally vague is high . . . ‘[T]he presumption in favor of a law’s

                                         5
No. 84366-4-I/6

constitutionality should be overcome only in exceptional cases.’” Watson, 160

Wn.2d at 11 (quoting City of Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn.2d 22, 28, 759 P.2d 366

(1988)); see also Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147, 955 P.2d 377 (1998)

(this standard arises from the court’s “deference” to the legislature).

   2. RCW 9A.88.010(1) and Principles of its Interpretation

       Here, the statute in question states:

       A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally
       makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the
       person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause
       reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing
       breast milk is not indecent exposure.

RCW 9A.88.010(1).

       “The meaning of a statute is a question of law we review de novo.” State v.

Brown, 194 Wn.2d 972, 975, 454 P.3d 870 (2019). We seek to ascertain and carry

out the legislature’s intent. State v. Barnes, 189 Wn.2d 492, 495, 403 P.3d 72

(2017). “An undefined term is ‘given its plain and ordinary meaning unless a

contrary legislative intent is indicated.’”    Brown, 194 Wn.2d at 976 (quoting

Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power Co., 136 Wn.2d 911, 920-21, 969 P.2d 75

(1998)). “If the statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation,

it is ambiguous and the court ‘may resort to statutory construction, legislative

history, and relevant case law for assistance in discerning legislative intent.’” Id.

(quoting Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 373, 173 P.3d 228 (2007)). “In

determining whether a statute conveys a plain meaning, ‘that meaning is discerned

from all that the Legislature has said in the statute and related statutes which

disclose legislative intent about the provision in question.’” Id. (quoting Dep’t of

                                          6
No. 84366-4-I/7

Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 11, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)).

B.     Discussion

       Thompson urges this court to affirm the trial court because the phrase “open

and obscene exposure of his or her person” in RCW 9A.88.010(1) does not

definitively set out what conduct is proscribed—i.e., whether actual nudity is

required to make an open and obscene exposure—which makes the statute

unconstitutionally vague as applied to Thompson. 4

       In support of this argument, Thompson first offers the dictionary definition

of the term “exposure,” which is defined as a “condition of being presented to view

or made known,” “open to view,” or “not shielded or protected.” From this definition,

and that of the remaining terms in the phrase “open and obscene exposure of his

or her person,” Thompson concludes that the plain and ordinary meaning of RCW

9A.88.010(1) requires “actual nudity” for him to have committed indecent

4 Thompson’s first argument in his briefing was that there was insufficient evidence

as a matter of law that he violated RCW 9A.88.010 “because [he] never exposed
his person.” Admittedly this argument was a request to reverse the first trial judge’s
denial of his earlier Knapstad motion. Thompson further argued on appeal that, if
this court affirmed on this ground, it would “thereby vitiate[e] the need to decide
the standalone issue of vagueness.” However, Thompson did not present this
issue to the second trial judge and did not cross-appeal the denial of the Knapstad
motion, which precludes its review on appeal. Amalg. Transit Union Loc. 587 v.
State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 202, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000). Thus, we decline
to address the merits of this specific argument under RAP 2.4(a). Furthermore, at
oral argument, counsel for Thompson conceded that we need not reach the
Knapstad issue if we resolve the constitutional challenge first. Wash. Court of
Appeals oral argument, State v. Thompson, No. 84366-4-I (July 14, 2023), at 16
min., 46 sec. through 17 min., 34 sec., video recording by TVW, Washington
State’s Public Affairs Network, https://tvw.org/video/division-1-court-of-appeals-
2023071111.
                                          7
No. 84366-4-I/8

exposure. 5 Thus, because Thompson’s genitalia remained covered by his shorts,

according to Thompson, he “cannot” be, or could not have known he could be

found, guilty of that crime.

       In turn, to the extent that RCW 9A.88.010(1) permits prosecution for

anything else but nudity, he contends that statute is unconstitutionally vague as

applied to him. In other words, if he is prosecuted despite being fully clothed,

Thompson would “necessarily have to guess at this language’s meaning and differ

as to its application to conclude that the statute penalizes clothed ‘exposures’ of

genitalia.”

       Thompson’s deconstruction of the phrase “open and obscene exposure of

his or her person” fails for two major, initial reasons. First, the terms “nudity” or

“nude” or “clothed” or “unclothed” (or any synonym thereof) do not appear

anywhere in the statute.       If the legislature wanted to “criminalize nudity,” as

Thompson claims, it certainly knew how. See McGinnis v. State, 152 Wn.2d 639,

645, 99 P.3d 1240 (2004) (“The legislature is presumed not to include unnecessary

language when it enacts legislation.”)

       Second, our courts consistently have defined the phrase “obscene

exposure,” not by breaking down the definition into its constituent parts as

5 Thompson also argues that, because “RCW 9A.88.010 explicitly exempts breast

feeding and expressing breast milk from the definition of indecent exposure,” this
must mean nudity is required because “breast feeding and expressing breast milk
both require nudity.” This claim is factually inaccurate, as either activity can be
concealed, and yet the legislature felt required to exclude these practices. As will
be discussed below, the statute could have referred to “exposed” breast
feeding/expressing but it did not. This conclusion too suggests that nudity is not
the gravamen of the crime.
                                          8
No. 84366-4-I/9

Thompson does, but by interpreting the phrase as a whole.

       Namely, in Galbreath, the defendant was convicted of violating, and then

challenged the constitutionality of, former RCW 9.79.080 (1955) for deliberately

displaying his genitals to children under 15 years old. 6 Galbreath, 69 Wn.2d at

666.   Our Supreme Court held that “the words ‘indecent’ and ‘obscene’ are

common words, of common usage, and enjoy a commonly recognized meaning

among people of common intelligence.”          Id. at 668.   It went on to find that,

“[c]ertainly, in the annals of the law the phrase ‘indecent or obscene exposure of

his person,’ has, through usage, developed a traditional and well-settled meaning,

which undoubtedly compares favorably to the meaning attributed thereto by the

average layman.” Id. at 668 (emphasis added). Specifically, “legal writers and

scholars have long conceived the phrase [obscene exposure] to signify and relate

to a lascivious exhibition of those private parts of the person which instinctive

modesty, human decency, or common propriety require shall be customarily kept

covered in the presence of others.” Id. (emphasis added).

       The phrase “obscene exposure,” in other words, is a legal term of art; it is

the “exhibition” of something customarily kept private, i.e., genitals, which are

6 Former RCW 9.79.080 (1955) was the predecessor statute in effect at the time,

which read “Every person who takes any indecent liberties with or on the person
of any child under the age of fifteen years, or makes any indecent or obscene
exposure of his person, or of the person of another, whether with or without his or
her consent, shall be guilty of a felony . . . .” Former RCW 9.79.080(2) (1955)
(emphasis added). At oral argument, counsel for Thompson conceded that
Galbreath is still good law despite the fact it was interpreting this statute, which the
legislature later significantly amended. Wash. Court of Appeals oral argument,
supra, at 3 min., 44 sec., through 5 min., 21 sec. It is also worth noting that
nowhere in Galbreath was the exposure described as “naked.”
                                           9
No. 84366-4-I/10

exhibited for lascivious reasons.

       The next decade, around the same time as the renaming and recodification

of this statute, this court defined the phrase “obscene exposure” consistent with

Galbreath and flatly held that “[i]t is sufficient if the acts are such that the common

sense of society would regard the specific act performed as indecent and

improper.” State v. Eisenshank, 10 Wn. App. 921, 924, 521 P.2d 239 (1974)

(defining the phrase also as “the lascivious exhibition of those private parts of the

person which instinctive modesty, human decency, or common propriety require

shall be customarily kept covered in the presence of others”) (emphasis added).

Explaining what it meant by “sufficient,” this court clarified that “the crime is

completed when the inappropriate exhibition takes place in the presence of

another.” 7 Id. (emphasis added).

       In short, our courts have defined the phrase “obscene exposure,” not as

nudity, but as a kind of wrongful exhibition. More specifically, the question is

whether our common shared sense of societal decency would judge a given

lascivious exhibition of a sexual organ as indecent or improper.

       To dig into those terms further, “lascivious” is defined as “filled with or

showing     sexual     desire.”        MERRIAM-W EBSTER        ONLINE     DICTIONARY,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lascivious; Barnes, 189 Wn.2d at

496 (an undefined, nontechnical term may also be determined from a standard

7 As in Galbreath, Eisenshank does not suggest, let alone mention, that nudity was

an essential element of the crime there. Thus, it is inaccurate to suggest, as
Thompson does, that the “case law . . . has always assumed that nudity is required
to violate RCW 9A.88.010.” That is ascribing an assumption to those cases that
is just not present.
                                          10
No. 84366-4-I/11

English dictionary). “Exhibition” is defined as “to show or display outwardly.”

MERRIAM-W EBSTER           ONLINE         DICTIONARY,          https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/exhibition. There is no per se requirement for nudity in the

term “exhibition.” The key is if the person is “displaying” his genitalia in a certain

way, i.e., sexually and contrary to our common sense of decency.

       Here, the State alleges that Thompson publicly showed his clearly erect,

though clothed, penis in a highly sexualized way, namely, masturbation. We hold

that our common sense of societal decency would judge the sexualized “display”

and stroking of his erect genitalia as improper, and that those acts would be

commonly understood as such by a person of ordinary intelligence. Galbreath, 69

Wn.2d at 667; Eisenshank, 10 Wn. App. at 924. “Particularly [does] this appear to

be so [because] the exposure condemned refers to behavior in the presence of

children of tender years.” Galbreath, 69 Wn.2d at 668. These allegations also fall

within the “core” of the statute for purposes of our vagueness analysis. Maciolek,

101 Wn.2d at 263. Thus, the alleged actions are not unconstitutionally vague as

applied to Thompson.

       In response, Thompson first contends the legislative history of RCW

9A.88.010 supports his assertion that the statute requires actual nudity. However,

it is unnecessary for us to review the legislative history in such detail because (a),

as Thompson recognizes, through all the changes enacted over the decades, the

essential phrase “obscene exposure” has been retained and not changed, and (b)

our Supreme Court has examined the legislative history and intent of the term, and

has never held that nudity is an essential element of the crime. Galbreath, 69

                                         11
No. 84366-4-I/12

Wn.2d at 668.

       If anything, as Thompson noted, the legislature changed the title of the

crime from “Public Indecency” to “Indecent Exposure” in response to a holding of

this court, which (as Thompson urges us to do here) focused on the pure dictionary

definition of the term “public,” and held that the exposure of one’s person had to

be made in a public place. LAWS OF 1987, ch. 277, § 1(1) (codified as amended at

RCW 9A.88.010(1)); State v. Sayler, 36 Wn. App. 230, 673 P.2d 870 (1983). This

evinces the legislature’s intent to focus the citizenry and the courts on more than

just the location of the crime, including its “public nature” and focus on the type of

behavior society would find improper.         We decline Thompson’s invitation to

myopically focus on whether, strictly-speaking, nudity occurred.

       Thompson further argues that two more recent cases posit a nudity

requirement in the statute: State v. Vars and State v. Stewart. Neither, however,

holds that nudity is a requirement for conviction under RCW 9A.88.010. State v.

Vars, 157 Wn. App. 482, 237 P.3d 378 (2010), State v. Stewart, 12 Wn. App. 2d

236, 457 P.3d 1213 (2020).

       In Vars, the defendant was seen walking around residential neighborhoods

naked, but no particular witness could testify they saw his genitals. Vars, 157 Wn.

App. at 489. Thompson makes much of the fact that, unlike in Galbreath and

Eisenshank, this court mentioned the defendant’s actual nudity. However, in Vars,

this court was addressing the narrow issue of whether a witness must observe

naked genitalia as an element of the crime of indecent exposure. Id. at 489. This

court found the witness did not need to observe the actual genitalia when

                                         12
No. 84366-4-I/13

circumstantial evidence was sufficient to infer the defendant’s genitalia was likely

“exposed.” Id. at 486.

       The question here is different: whether a defendant’s genitals must be nude.

Vars did not need to reach or define the phrase “any open and obscene exposure

of his or her person.” Vars simply returned to the understanding of obscenity first

announced in Galbreath, when finding that “the gravamen of the crime is an

intentional and ‘obscene exposure’ in the presence of another that offends

society’s sense of ‘instinctive modesty, human decency, and common propriety.’”

Id. at 491 (quoting Galbreath, 69 Wn.3d at 668). Vars does not disturb our more

holistic understanding of the phrase “obscene exposure” above. 8

       The second case Thompson relies on is State v. Stewart, where this court

examined again whether there was substantial evidence of indecent exposure.

Stewart, 12 Wn. App. 2d at 23. In Stewart, the defendant was seen crouching in

an alleyway (from behind) with his hand moving “rapidly” in front of his pants. Id.

at 240-41. Witness testimony was unclear for whether his pants were on. Id. at

240. The witness did not see his genitalia. Id. at 238. The court concluded,

despite that fact, there was substantial evidence he was indecently exposing

himself in public “outside his pants,” through the totality of the evidence. Id. at 242.

As in Vars, however, this court was not preoccupied with the question whether,

and did not find as a matter of law, masturbation must occur on the outside of the

8 Vars also occurred in a different procedural posture where the question was

whether there was sufficient evidence of indecent exposure, and not whether
indecent exposure occurred as a matter of law with or without nudity. Vars, 157
Wn. App. at 489.
                                          13
No. 84366-4-I/14

pants to find a defendant guilty of indecent exposure.

       Finally, Thompson stands up a field full of strawmen, arguing that, under

this understanding of the phrase “obscene exposure,” “any time the outline of one’s

genitalia can be seen through clothing, a crime occurs.” He contends that men in

“wrestling singlets,” women in “skintight compression leggings,” and even an

“involuntary erection while sleeping” could be actionable under this interpretation

of the term.

       We conclude that this is not a serious argument. As a matter of law,

indecent exposure requires, not only exhibition of the genitals, but obscenity, i.e.,

lascivious behavior judged as improper by society. It is the exhibition and the

behavior which are the gravamen of the crime. Vars, 157 Wn. App. 491. There

would be no basis to prosecute the athletic, artistic, humorous, or celebratory

display of the body, which in most contexts “common decency” requires a person

not to display, unless it would also be deemed lascivious (i.e., filled with sexual

desire) and improper by the common person.

       Conversely, under Thompson’s logic, a barely veiled erect penis used in the

most sexualized and unwelcome manner imaginable would not be considered

obscene because the genitalia is at least not naked. Our interpretation of the

statute does not allow such absurd results. Kilian v. Atkinson, 147 Wn.2d 16, 21,

50 P.3d 638 (2002) (this court “must also avoid constructions that yield unlikely,

absurd or strained consequences.”).

                               III.   CONCLUSION

       We conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the charge at issue as

                                         14
No. 84366-4-I/15

unconstitutionally vague as applied to Thompson. We, thus, reverse and vacate

the order dismissing the information, and remand the matter for further

proceedings.

WE CONCUR:

                                     15