Colorado Criminal Law Public Indecency (18-7-301)

  1. Any person who performs any of the following in a public place or where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public commits public indecency:
    1. An act of sexual intercourse; or
    2. (Deleted by amendment, L. 2010, (HB 10-1334), ch. 359, p. 1707, § 1, effective August 11, 2010.)
    3. A lewd exposure of an intimate part as defined by section 18-3-401 (2) of the body, not including the genitals, done with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desire of any person; or
    4. A lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person; or
    5. A knowing exposure of the person’s genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.
    1. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2), public indecency is a class 1 petty offense.
    2. Public indecency as described in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor if the violation is committed subsequent to a conviction for a violation of paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section or for a violation of a comparable offense in any other state or in the United States, or for a violation of a comparable municipal ordinance.
  2. (Deleted by amendment, L. 2010, (HB 10-1334), ch. 359, p. 1707, § 1, effective August 11, 2010.)

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 453, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-7-301. L. 2008: (1)(d) amended and (1)(e) and (3) added, p. 1716, §§ 1, 2, effective July 1. L. 2010: Entire section amended, (HB 10-1334), ch. 359, p. 1707, § 1, effective August 11.

Annotation

The plain language of this offense reflects the general assembly’s intent to make public indecency a strict liability crime without a culpable mental state. Because this section makes it a crime to perform any of the stated acts where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public, it does not matter whether the defendant knew he was in a public place. The objective standard depends on what a reasonable person in the defendant’s position should have known. Therefore, the trial court did not err in rejecting a jury instruction that would have required the jury to find the defendant knew he was in a public place. People v. Hoskay, 87 P.3d 194 (Colo. App. 2003).

Client Reviews

"Mr. Steinberg provided my family with expert handling of my son's case. He took extra time understand the case, to consult with us during the pretrial proceedings, and to support him for a plea agreement. Mr. Steinberg is very knowledge about the law and very professional. He guided us in achieving...

Tanya Witt

"I found myself in criminal trouble, that I wasn't guilty of and thanks to Mr. Steinberg's dedication and hard work, right before we we're looking at having to continue on to trial level Mr. Steinberg was able to use his vast knowledge of the law and his many respected years in the system to find a...

Josh

"Working with Michael Steinberg was a wonderful experience. Truly people need to know that he is a expert in what he does. His personality is compassionate, intellectual, and down to earth. I glean that Michael is fun to be around. In the time I worked with him, it was a pleasure to be around him...

Renee Taylor

Mr. Steinberg, It has been an honor working with you. I very much appreciated your style, demeanor, patience, and determination. I was well instructed in every step of the court process, and I felt that I received excellent guidance and timely information regarding my case. You have been extremely...

Anonymous

Contact Us

  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Call 24/7 for Emergency Help
  3. 3 42+ Years of Experience
Fill out the contact form or call us at 303-627-7777 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message