
    THE STATE v. SOLOMON ROPER.
    An indictment which charges an indecent and scandalous exposure of the naked person to public view in a public place, is sufficient, without charging the act to have been committed in the presence of one or more of the citizens of the state.
    The defendant was convicted at Burke, on the last Circuit, before his Honor Judge Settee, upon the following indictment.
    “ The jurors for the state upon their oaths present, that Solomon Roper, late of said county, on the first day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, with force and arms in said county, being an evil disposed person, and contriving and intending to debauch and corrupt the morals of the citizens of said county, on a certain public highway in said county, did indecently and scandalously expose to public view the private parts of him the said Roper, to the evil and pernicious example of all others in like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the state.”
    After his conviction, the defendant’s counsel moved in arrest of judgment, “that the bill of indictment was defective, in not charging that the offence was committed in the presence of one or more good citizens then and there assembled.” His Honor overruled the motion, and pronounced judgment, from which the defendant appealed.
    No counsel appeared for the defendant.
    The Attorney-General, for the state.
   Gaston, Judge,

after stating the case, proceeded: — We consider it a clear proposition, that every act which openly outrages decency, and tends to the corruption of the public morals, is a misdemeanor at common law. A public exposure of the naked person, is among the most offensive of those outrages on decency and public morality. It is not necessary to the constitution of the criminal act, that the disgusting exhibition should have been actually seen ,by the public; it is enough, if the circumstances under ; which it was obtruded were such as to render it probable ■that it would be publicly seen; thereby endangering a ishock to modest feeling, and manifesting a contempt for 'the laws of decency. In the description of every indictable offence, it is always advisable that the charge should be made to conform to approved precedents. A departure from them is viewed with suspicion. Yet where there are no precise technical expressions and terms of art required, so appropriated by the law to the description of an offence as not to admit a substitute for them, it is sufficient that the indictment charges in intelligible language, with distinctness and certainty, all the substantial circumstances which constitute the offence. In 2 Chit. ; Grim. Law, 41, we have a precedent of the indictment which was used in the case of The King v. Crunden. It consists of two counts. The first charges, that he exposed himself naked and in an indecent posture near to, and in front of, divers houses, and also near to a certain public highway, and also in the presence of divers of the king’s subjects: the second charges, that he exposed himself naked to divers of his majesty’s subjects. In 2 Campbell’s Rep. page 89, we have a report of the case. The defendant was convicted on evidence that he bathed in the sea, dressing and undressing on the beach, opposite to the East Cliff at Brighton, on which cliff there was a row of inhabited houses, from the windows of which he might be distinctly seen, as he was undressed and swam in the sea. The allegation, that this indecent exhibition was made in the presence of divers persons, was satisfied by proof that it took place in their vicinity, and so that it might have been seen. The allegation means no more, and any other allegation which distinctly and explicitly avers as much, will as effectually answer to decribe the offence. The averments in this indictment, that on a certain public highway the defendant did' indecently and scandalously expose to public view, can mean nothing less than that the indecent exposition was so made, that it might have been seen by numbers. The necessary constituents of the crime are therefore stated, and there was no error in overruling the motion in arrest.

This opinion will be certified to the Superior Court of Burke, with directions to proceed to judgment and sentence against the defendant, agreeably to this decision and the law of the state.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.  