## Facts

- James A. Beine worked as a counselor at an elementary school and, as part of his duties, entered boys’ restrooms to address student disruptions.
- The school’s restrooms were designated by gender or as unisex; adults sometimes used the larger restrooms also used by students.
- Three male students under age 14 testified about two restroom incidents in spring 2001.
- Two students testified Beine used a urinal near them and urinated in a manner they described as exposing his penis.
- A third student testified that during a disturbance Beine turned from a urinal to discipline students while allegedly unzipped and exposed, then quickly zipped up.
- Beine was charged with three counts under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.083.1(1) (then in force), which criminalized knowingly exposing one’s genitals to a child under 14 in a manner a reasonable adult would believe likely to cause “affront or alarm.”
- A jury convicted Beine on all counts; the court imposed four years per count, with sentences structured to total twelve years’ imprisonment.
- Beine appealed, principally arguing § 566.083.1(1) was facially unconstitutional as overbroad.

## Issues

1. Whether Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.083.1(1) was facially overbroad because it criminalized a substantial amount of innocent conduct.
2. Whether overbreadth analysis was available for a criminal statute regulating non-expressive conduct in this setting.
3. Whether the statute could be saved by a narrowing construction (such as reading in a lewdness or sexual-purpose element) or partial invalidation.
4. Whether a finding of unconstitutionality required reversal of Beine’s convictions entered under the subsection.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri held Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.083.1(1) unconstitutionally overbroad.
- The court concluded the statute reached substantial innocent conduct because it did not require lewdness, sexual purpose, or intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire.
- The court rejected a narrowing construction that would add elements not present in the statutory text.
- The court reversed the judgment of conviction, and the convictions under § 566.083.1(1) could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A criminal law is facially overbroad if, as written, it prohibits a substantial amount of lawful conduct relative to its legitimate sweep.
- A statute criminalizing exposure based on a “reasonable adult” prediction of likely “affront or alarm,” without limiting elements such as lewdness or sexual purpose, may sweep in ordinary, noncriminal situations (e.g., routine bathroom use or nonsexual exposures).
- Courts may not cure constitutional defects by rewriting an unambiguous statute to add missing elements; a narrowing construction must be consistent with the enacted text.
- When convictions rest solely on an unconstitutional statutory provision, reversal is required.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court invalidated § 566.083.1(1) as facially overbroad because it imposed criminal liability for a wide range of nonlewd, nonsexual exposures based on a broad “affront or alarm” standard, and it reversed Beine’s convictions obtained under that subsection.


State v. Beine, 162 S.W.3d 483 (Mo. 2005)