Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s conviction of aggravated indecent exposure; MCL 750.335a(1) & (2)(b); Claim that he lacked "indecent intention"; Open exposure; People v. Neal; In re Certified Question; People v. Williams; People v. Vronko

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant openly exposed his erect penis to the victim while also putting others at substantial risk of observing him, the court affirmed his conviction. He argued that because he did nothing to wake up the victim or otherwise call attention to himself, he lacked the “indecent intention” to commit the offense. The argument failed because MCL 750.335a(2)(b) does not set forth an intent element. He also argued that he did not knowingly expose himself to the victim, but rather was merely attempting to gratify himself while she remained asleep. However, this argument failed to consider that the victim could awaken at any time, as she did sometime earlier. He also put others at substantial risk of observing him. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to establish that his exposure was an open one.