Pictures of naked maine girls
In the beginning, the messages concerned basketball, but Legassie gradually steered the conversation toward sex. Sec'y of State, 2012 ME 142, ¶ 12, 60 A.3d 1241 (quotation marks omitted). In the context of criminal statutes, our interpretation is also “guided by two interrelated rules of statutory construction: the rule of lenity, and the rule of strict construction ․ Pursuant to each of these rules, any ambiguity left unresolved by a strict construction of the statute must be resolved in the defendant's favor.” State v. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class E crime;․B. 1981).[¶18] In 1995, the Legislature changed the title of the offense from “public indecency” to “indecent conduct” and added subsection (C).
Legassie purported to know her from working as a referee for her high school team's basketball games. We first look to the statutory language to discern the Legislature's intent. “We look to legislative history and other extraneous aids in interpretation of a statute only when we have determined that the statute is ambiguous.” Carrier v. Violation of this subparagraph is a Class E crime;(2) The actor knowingly exposes the actor's genitals under circumstances that in fact are likely to cause affront or alarm.
At that time, Legassie was twenty-one years old and Victim A was fifteen. In a public place:(1) The actor engages in a sexual act, as defined in section 251.
“[T]he original is not required if it: (1) was lost or destroyed, absent bad faith; (2) is unobtainable; (3) is in the control of the party against whom the document is offered; or (4) relates to a collateral matter.” LDC Gen.
§ 854(1)(B), following a bench trial in the Superior Court (Aroostook County, Hunter, J.). Section 854(1)(C) provides, in relevant part, that a person commits indecent conduct if “[i]n a private place, the actor exposes the actor's genitals with the intent that the actor be seen by another person in that private place under circumstances that the actor knows are likely to cause affront or alarm.” 17-A M. See An Act to Prohibit Private Indecency: Hearing on L.
Legassie added seventeen-year-old Victim C as a friend on Facebook and sent her four nude photos of himself through Facebook Messenger.
Legislative testimony by the representative who proposed the 1995 amendment suggests that the Legislature intended to criminalize an in-person exposure that would otherwise escape prosecution because the actor and the victim were in the same private place.
The Legislature thereby extended the reach of the statute from exposures by an actor visible to the outside domain—from a public place or another private place—to exposures in the private domain where the actor and the victim were in the same private place.