A. A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.
B. Indecent exposure does not include an act of breast-feeding by a mother.
C. Indecent exposure to a person who is fifteen or more years of age is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that it is a class 6 felony if the defendant has two or more prior convictions for a violation of this section or has one or more prior convictions for a violation of section 13-1406. Indecent exposure to a person who is under fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony.
D. A person who is convicted of a felony violation of this section and who has two or more historical prior felony convictions for a violation of this section or section 13-1403 involving indecent exposure or public sexual indecency to a minor who is under fifteen years of age is guilty of a class 3 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment as follows:
Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggravated
6 years 8 years 10 years 12 years 15 years
E. The presumptive term imposed pursuant to subsection D of this section may be mitigated or aggravated pursuant to section 13-701, subsections D and E.
Notes of Decisions
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d 1025 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 10× “In the case before us, Wagenseller refused to participate in activities which arguably would have violated our indecent exposure statute, A.R.S. § 13-1402. She claims that she was fired because of this refusal.”
State v. Sandoval, 857 P.2d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 25× “In doing so, the court observed: The language of [A.R.S. § 13-1402] implies that it is not so much the place as the purpose of the exposure and the likelihood of affront that determine criminality.”
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning, 33 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “¶ 6 Norgox-d contends indecent exposure is not a sexual offense and, therefore, does not fall within the statutory definition of cximinal offense for purposes of victims’ rights.”
State v. Whitaker, 793 P.2d 116 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 10× “Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona 197 (1978): “The language of [A.R.S. § 13-1402] implies that it is not so much the place as the purpose of the exposure and the likelihood of affront that determine criminality.”
State ex rel. Baumert v. Mun. Court of Phoenix, 602 P.2d 827 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 16× “In Phoenix Municipal Court the real parties in interest successfully moved for dismissal of the charges on grounds that the city ordinance was preempted by state statutes dealing with indecent exposure (A.R.S. § 13-1402) and solicitation (A.R.S.”
Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa, 618 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. 1980).
· cites it 7× “May the state appeal from a directed verdict of acquittal without violating the prohibition of double jeopardy as set forth in Art.”
State v. Williams, 854 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1993).
· cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 13-1402(B) (increasing indecent exposure offense from class one misdemeanor to class six felony where victim is under the age of fifteen); A.”
Taylor v. Graham Cnty. Chamber of Com., 33 P.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” As Taylor points out, Wagenseller recognized a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy underlying Arizona’s indecent exposure statute, A.R.S. § 13-1402, “even if there would have been no technical violation of the statute” in that particular…”
State v. Garcia, 28 P.3d 327 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “¶ 22 A.R.S. § 13-1402, our indecent exposure statute, reads as follows: A.”
Wagner v. City of Globe, 722 P.2d 250 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Scottsdale Memorial Hospital, supra (nurse discharged allegedly for refusing to “moon” the audience during a skit, an act which might violate A.R.S. § 13-1402). However, we believe that the petitioner’s behavior is best characterized as whistle-blowing behavior.”
Cronin v. Sheldon, 991 P.2d 231 (Ariz. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The public policy on which Wagenseller was predicated stemmed not from ACRA but from the Arizona criminal statute dealing with indecent exposure, A.R.S. § 13-1402 (1989). The indecent exposure law prescribes no separate civil remedy, thus placing Wagenseller-type claims within…”
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court, 624 P.2d 862 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 4× “…states: “ * * * Also, the ‘medical treatment’ defenses provided in ARS §§ 13-1407(A) and (C) to charges under ARS §§ 13-1402,13-1404,13-1405, and 13-1406 (variously) do not apply to violations of ARS § 13-1403. Did the legislature truly intend to find doctors culpable…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1402(A) — 7 cases
State v. Whitaker, 793 P.2d 116 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona 197 (1978): “The language of [A.R.S. § 13-1402] implies that it is not so much the place as the purpose of the exposure and the likelihood of affront that determine criminality.”
Rolph v. City Court of City of Mesa, 618 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. 1980).
“May the state appeal from a directed verdict of acquittal without violating the prohibition of double jeopardy as set forth in Art.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1402(B) — 3 cases
State v. Williams, 854 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1993).
“, A.R.S. § 13-1402(B) (increasing indecent exposure offense from class one misdemeanor to class six felony where victim is under the age of fifteen); A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.