CustomsCop
09-29-2001, 02:45
Anyone from Utah care to comment??? I personal dont think that this was lewd, hell most guys would be in jail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justices overturn lewdness decision
They say Vernal teen did indeed break the law
By Linda Thomson
Deseret News staff writer
A Vernal teenager who handled his private parts in front of a convenience store in view of other people did break the law, according to a Utah Supreme Court ruling.
The ruling issued Tuesday overturns a Utah Court of Appeals decision, which had held that the 15-year-old boy's actions were not lewd enough to be illegal.
The boy, identified in court papers as A.T., did these actions in view of a woman parked near the store, who was described as "shocked" and made to feel "very uncomfortable," according to court documents. The actions also were seen by a plainclothes deputy sheriff who was nearby using a pay phone and who subsequently arrested the youth.
The juvenile court found that the boy's conduct, which occurred in 1998, was intentional and that he did it to offend the victim. The boy appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague or alternatively that his conduct did not fall within the definition of lewdness as described by the law.
The Appeals Court judges said the young man's conduct "did not rise to the level necessary to be considered lewdness as proscribed by the statute because A.T.'s conduct was not of 'equal magnitude of gravity' as the acts specifically set forth in the statute," according to court documents.
However, the majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed with that decision.
"A.T. should have known his behavior would likely cause affront or alarm to the woman in the parking lot," Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilkins wrote in the ruling. "It is precisely this type of conduct that the Legislature intended to prohibit in enacting the statute."
Agreeing with Wilkins were Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard C. Howe, Justice Christine Durham and Justice Matthew Durrant.
Associate Chief Justice Leonard Russon dissented, stating that he would remand the case to the trial court for findings of fact on the case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justices overturn lewdness decision
They say Vernal teen did indeed break the law
By Linda Thomson
Deseret News staff writer
A Vernal teenager who handled his private parts in front of a convenience store in view of other people did break the law, according to a Utah Supreme Court ruling.
The ruling issued Tuesday overturns a Utah Court of Appeals decision, which had held that the 15-year-old boy's actions were not lewd enough to be illegal.
The boy, identified in court papers as A.T., did these actions in view of a woman parked near the store, who was described as "shocked" and made to feel "very uncomfortable," according to court documents. The actions also were seen by a plainclothes deputy sheriff who was nearby using a pay phone and who subsequently arrested the youth.
The juvenile court found that the boy's conduct, which occurred in 1998, was intentional and that he did it to offend the victim. The boy appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague or alternatively that his conduct did not fall within the definition of lewdness as described by the law.
The Appeals Court judges said the young man's conduct "did not rise to the level necessary to be considered lewdness as proscribed by the statute because A.T.'s conduct was not of 'equal magnitude of gravity' as the acts specifically set forth in the statute," according to court documents.
However, the majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed with that decision.
"A.T. should have known his behavior would likely cause affront or alarm to the woman in the parking lot," Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilkins wrote in the ruling. "It is precisely this type of conduct that the Legislature intended to prohibit in enacting the statute."
Agreeing with Wilkins were Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard C. Howe, Justice Christine Durham and Justice Matthew Durrant.
Associate Chief Justice Leonard Russon dissented, stating that he would remand the case to the trial court for findings of fact on the case.