The First Court of Appeals erred by finding that the Information alleged with reasonable certainty, the acts relied upon to constitute recklessness.Joseph Smith was charged with indecent exposure for "recklessly" masturbating in front of an undercover officer at Houston's Memorial Park. [Rest stops are the bath houses of the 90s.] The information alleges that he exposed his penis and masturbated, but didn't tell how he was reckless as to another person being offended, according to Smith. The court of appeals rejected this argument because the information alleged that Smith exposed his penis and that he was reckless that another person was present who would be offended and alarmed by the act. In other words, "it is what it is." If this Belichick cliche is going to apply to a crime, masturbating in public would have to be the one. And not to get too meta here, but isn't this opinion kind of its own appellate onanism? Or Conanism. Two snakes joined at the tail. FACING EACH OTHER!
Ah, forget it.
Here's a link to the CCA case info. Here's a link to the underlying opinion and a link to the underlying case info.
