KBCraig wrote:
Ah, there's the rub: technically, she wasn't breaking the law at all.
She was charged with RSA 645:1, "Indecent exposure and lewdness". Here's the statute, in its entirety:
645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness. –
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person fornicates, exposes his or her genitals, or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm.
II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
(a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is less than 16 years of age.
(b) Such person purposely transmits to a child who is less than 16 years of age, or an individual whom the actor reasonably believes is a child who is less than 16 years of age, an image of himself or herself fornicating, exposing his or her genitals, or performing any other act of gross lewdness.
(c) Having previously been convicted of an offense under paragraph I, or of an offense that includes the same conduct under any other jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under paragraph I.
III. A person shall be guilty of a class A felony if having previously been convicted of 2 or more offenses under paragraph II, or a reasonably equivalent statute in another state, the person subsequently commits an offense under this section.
The portion of that RSA that I bold-faced is the portion the prosecution will most likely pursue in court. The fact she was bare-breasted in public and some other citizen reported her to the police may be prima-facie evidence of an act of gross lewdness that Cassidy knew was likely to cause affront.
Let's face it, you can't possibly argue the ability to make a conscious decision to protest nude in public and yet be unaware that someone else may take affront to your nudity. If the prosecution uses the YouTube video as evidence, Cassidy may be in a world of legal hurt because of some of the statements she made while speaking with the officer; they indicate that she was well-aware that her actions may offend others and at one point said that the law didn't mean @#$%... Judges don't look very favorably on a verbally affirmed disregard for the law.
One other issue is that you must define "genitals" in the context of the RSA. Genitals may be defined in the RSA as including breasts for women or they may not. If female breasts are considered "genitals" in the RSA, her case is sunk. Even if there is no definition of "genitals" in the RSA and there is no case-law to support it, a judge could rule that female breasts apply to this RSA which would again, sink her case. She would then be forced to appeal.
I hope she has a good attorney.
