Court Opinion

ID: 9694586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:47:56.6348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:03.724858
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING
OPINION BY JOYCE, J.:
¶ 1 I agree with the thoughtful rationale and conclusions of the Majority relating to the search warrant and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction of indecent exposure. However, as I disagree that the Commonwealth met its burden of proving the crime of open lewdness, I would reverse that conviction and vacate the judgment of sentence. In that regard, I dissent.
¶2 To sustain a conviction for open lewdness, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused “does any lewd act which he knows is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5901; Commonwealth v. Allsup, 481 Pa. 313, 392 A.2d 1309, 1311 (1978). In this case, the record is devoid of any evidence that anyone was affronted or alarmed.
¶ 3 There were three individuals at the quarry with Appellant. Only one, Steve Parfitt, testified at trial. He stated that all of those who accompanied Appellant “knew that we were going to swim without our suit once we got up there,” and that they had “talked about it.” N.T., 05/31/2005, at 89. This is the extent of testimony relative to the element that someone would likely be affronted or alarmed. Mr. Parfitt did not testify that he was affronted or alarmed, nor was there any evidence of how the other two boys reacted to the naked swimming. To the contrary, swimming without suits was the plan before the group departed, and Mr. Parfitt testified that this was not the first time that they had swum naked. Clearly, even in viewing this testimony in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, this element was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence is insufficient to establish Appellant guilty of open lewdness.30 Thus, I would reverse his judgment of sentence and vacate that conviction.
¶4 My position on the open lewdness conviction is not incompatible with affirming Appellant’s judgment of sentence for the indecent exposure conviction. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3127(a) provides:
a) Offense defined. — A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.
Thus, there are two “places” where the crime of indecent exposure can be committed, in “any public place” or “any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is *514likely to offend, affront or alarm.” See Commonwealth v. De Walt, 752 A.2d 915 (Pa.Super.2000) (treating the two places as alternative elements of the crime and finding that a back yard porch was not a public place); see also Commonwealth v. Andrulewicz, 911 A.2d 162 (Pa.Super.2006) (indecent exposure committed when the defendant exposed his genitals in presence of minors while in his home).
¶ 5 In this instance, Appellant exposed his genitals in a public place, a privately owned tract of land that was frequented by the public as the neighboring swimming hole. Since Appellant was in a public place, as opposed to “any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm,” the Commonwealth was not required to prove that someone was offended, affronted or alarmed to sustain its burden of proof for indecent exposure.
¶ 6 Accordingly, I join in part and dissent in part.

. The Majoriiy states that the Commonwealth was not required to prove that anyone was offended, alarmed or affronted because the victims were minors. Majority opinion, at 510 n. 24. I do not find such exception stated in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5901, nor can I locate a case which stands for that proposition. The cases cited by the Majority, Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 814 A.2d 209, 213 (Pa.Super.2002) and Commonwealth v. Todd, 348 Pa.Super. 453, 502 A.2d 631, 634-635 (1985), do not deal with issue at hand, or even the same crime, and cannot be read so broadly so to usurp a statutory element of the crime.