## Facts

- Maui police received an anonymous report of nude sunbathing at Puu Olai beach in Makena, Maui.
- Officers observed Richard Barry Rocker and Joseph Cava lying completely nude on the beach, using the naked eye and binoculars from a ridge.
- The defendants were not engaged in any conduct other than sunbathing.
- Several other people were on the same beach at the time of arrest.
- The beach was accessible by a path from a public road and was known as a popular place for fishermen and public recreation.
- Evidence showed both defendants had frequently sunbathed nude at the same beach on prior occasions.
- The State charged the defendants under HRS § 727-1 with “common nuisance,” premised on conduct alleged to be offensive to common decency or morality.

## Issues

1. Whether nude sunbathing at a beach accessible and used by the public constituted indecent exposure and therefore a common nuisance under HRS § 727-1.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported an inference of the required criminal intent for indecent exposure (general intent to offend community standards), as opposed to specific intent to be seen by a particular person.
3. Whether the location constituted a “public place” for indecent exposure purposes and, if so, whether a constitutional privacy claim barred conviction.
4. Whether the trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion for acquittal and whether substantial evidence supported the convictions on appeal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed the convictions.
- The court treated the charged “common nuisance” as indecent exposure under HRS § 727-1.
- The court held there was substantial evidence that the defendants exposed themselves in a public place where they were likely to be seen by others.
- The court held that only general intent is required and that intent could be inferred from exposing oneself in a place so public that observation by others was likely.
- The court rejected the privacy claim because the defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of being free from governmental intrusion at an accessible and commonly used beach.
- The court upheld the denial of the motion for acquittal under the standard that the evidence must permit a reasonable mind to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and affirmed under the substantial-evidence standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- Indecent exposure under HRS § 727-1 requires proof that: (1) the defendant exposed himself; (2) in a public place where it may be seen by others; and (3) under circumstances permitting an inference of a general intent to offend the community’s sense of decency, propriety, and morality.
- The intent element for indecent exposure is general intent, not specific intent; it is enough that the exposure occurred where observation by others was likely.
- A “public place” for indecent exposure is defined functionally by likelihood of observation by a number of casual observers, not by formal property classifications.
- Criminal intent may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, including exposure in an area with regular public access and use.
- Privacy protection turns on whether a person could reasonably expect the area to be free from governmental intrusion; such an expectation is not reasonable in an accessible area used by members of the public.
- A directed verdict (judgment of acquittal) is properly denied if a reasonable mind could fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; appellate review asks whether substantial evidence supports the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed convictions for common nuisance based on indecent exposure where defendants sunbathed nude on an accessible, publicly used beach, holding that publicness depends on likelihood of observation, intent is general and may be inferred from circumstances, and no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in that setting.


State v. Rocker, 52 Haw. 336, 475 P.2d 684 (Haw. 1970)