Posts tagged "Coppinger"

Commonwealth v. Coppinger (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-108-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   13-P-287                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JOHN G. COPPINGER. No. 13-P-287. Plymouth.      May 2, 2014. – September 4, 2014.   Present:  Trainor, Fecteau, & Carhart, JJ.   Open and Gross Lewdness and Lascivious Behavior.  Constitutional Law, Vagueness of statute.  Evidence, Intent.  Intent.  Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury, Request for jury instructions.  Words, “Exposure.”       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 3, 2011.   The cases were tried before Robert C. Cosgrove, J.     Brian A. Kelley for the defendant. Gail M. McKenna, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.      CARHART, J.  After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of open and gross lewdness, in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 16, and of accosting a person of the opposite sex, in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 53.  Appealing from his conviction of open and gross lewdness, he argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss, alleging that the statute prohibiting open and gross lewdness is unconstitutionally vague.  The defendant also argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty and in instructing the jury on a definition of the word “exposure.”  We affirm. Background.  The following facts are not in dispute.  On April 5, 2011, the defendant entered a Target store in Kingston.  On that occasion, he chose to wear white “see-through” compression shorts.  On his way into the store, the defendant asked an employee whether it was “okay” to wear his shorts inside.  Several Target employees testified to seeing the defendant’s buttocks and the “flesh color of his skin” through the shorts.  One witness testified that she could “clearly” see that the defendant was not wearing underwear.  Another witness described seeing the outline of the defendant’s “semi-erect” penis.  On redirect, the witness stated that she saw a semi-erect penis through the shorts.  The witness also testified that she saw the defendant’s testicles through the shorts.  Various witnesses described their shock.  A store employee notified the police.  The police responded as the defendant was pulling on a pair of jeans over his compression shorts outside of the store.  The defendant was arrested and charged. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the statute prohibiting open and gross lewdness was unconstitutionally vague.  That […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 4, 2014 at 11:42 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,