State v. Rocker
1970 Haw. LEXIS 135, 52 Haw. 336, 475 P.2d 684 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nudity in a place that is publicly accessible and frequented constitutes indecent exposure, a form of common nuisance, because a general intent to be seen can be inferred from the public nature of the location, and there is no constitutional right to privacy that protects such an act on a public beach.
Facts:
- Richard Barry Rocker and Joseph Cava frequently sunbathed in the nude at Puu Olai beach in Makena, Maui.
- The Puu Olai beach is isolated from public roads by a hill and a ledge, but it is accessible to the public via a well-worn path.
- The beach was known to be used by the public, specifically by fishermen and local residents.
- On February 26, 1969, following an anonymous phone call, police officers went to the beach.
- From a nearby ridge, the officers observed Rocker and Cava lying on the beach completely nude.
- At the time the police approached and arrested them, several other people were present on the beach.
- Rocker and Cava were not engaged in any activity other than sunbathing.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Hawaii filed a complaint against Richard Barry Rocker and Joseph Cava in the circuit court of the second circuit, a state trial court.
- The defendants were charged with creating a common nuisance in violation of HRS § 727-1.
- The defendants waived their right to a jury trial.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found the defendants guilty as charged.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sunbathing in the nude on a publicly accessible, albeit remote, beach constitute the offense of common nuisance under a statute that lists indecent exposure as an example of such a nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, C.J.
Yes. Sunbathing in the nude on a publicly accessible beach constitutes a common nuisance under Hawaii's statute. The offense of indecent exposure requires a general, not specific, intent, which can be inferred when the exposure occurs in a place so public that it is likely to be observed by others. A location is considered 'public' if it is accessible and frequented by the public, such as the beach in this case, regardless of its seeming remoteness. The act offends the community's sense of decency, and there is no constitutional right of privacy that entitles an individual to be nude on a public beach, as there can be no reasonable expectation of freedom from public or governmental intrusion in such a place.
Dissenting - Levinson, J.
No. The State's evidence, at the close of its case, was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants possessed the necessary general intent to be seen by others. It did not establish that the defendants were aware that the beach was frequented by fishermen or that they knew of the 'well-worn' path, especially since another, less-used trail also provided access. Without proof that the defendants knew others were likely to see them, the element of intent was not met, and their motion for acquittal should have been granted.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the elements of indecent exposure under Hawaii's common nuisance law, establishing that the 'public place' and 'intent' requirements are objective rather than subjective. The court's ruling solidifies the principle that a location's remoteness does not render it private if it remains accessible to and used by the public. Furthermore, the analysis significantly curtails the scope of the constitutional right to privacy, holding that it does not extend to public nudity because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach. This precedent makes it easier to prosecute public nudity cases by allowing intent to be inferred from the choice of location alone.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Rocker