State v. Prince
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2024, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- State of Minnesota v. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte (Minn. Ct. App. 2024)
- State v. Jama (Minn. 2019)
- State v. Stevenson (Minn. 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of indecent exposure. Minn. St. 617.23. His contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, established that defendant stood completely naked in the doorway of.his home and attracted the attention of three passing high school girls by saying, “Hi, girls.” The evidence that defendant endeavored to attract the attention of passers-by while standing nude in plain sight of the passers-by was clearly sufficient, under principles enunciated in State v. Peery, 224 Minn. 346, 28 N. W. 2d 851 (1947), to justify the verdict.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.