MEMORANDUM OPINION

(May 28, 2010)

Steven Meyers (“Meyers” or “Appellant”) brings this appeal challenging the criminal statute under which he was convicted as unconstitutionally void for vagueness. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm Meyers’ conviction.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Meyers was charged with four counts of obscene and indecent conduct in violation of V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14, § 1022(a)(1).1 The Government’s second amended complaint charged that on at least four occasions — on March 17, 2002, August 11, 2002, August 21, 2002, and August 29, 2002 — Meyers exposed “his private body parts in a place where there were present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby and/or did exhibit himself to public view or to the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency.” (J.A. 7-8.) Those charges stemmed from allegations that Meyers, who resided at No. 251 Estate Mount Pleasant, Frederiksted, routinely moved about his backyard naked, in view of his neighbors.

Three neighbors who witnessed Meyers’ conduct on sepárate occasions testified on behalf of the Government. Theresa Vanterpool, who resided at No. 249 Estate Mount Pleasant, testified that she observed Meyers walking around naked in his backyard on at least two occasions in August 2002. Felicidad Joseph, who resided at No. 253 Estate Mount Pleasant, testified that she saw Meyers on August 29, 2002 and again on August 31, 2002, working in his yard while naked. Consylitha Walters, who resided next door at No. 250, said Meyers regularly moved around his backyard naked and had done so since approximately 1993. The neighbors testified *869that they were able to see Meyers as they casually moved around their property because there was nothing to obstruct their view. Joseph and Walters testified that as a result of Meyers’ conduct, they could not allow their children to play in their own yards. There was also a path adjoining Meyers’ property, which was used by children and others as a shortcut.

Following a bench trial, Meyers was convicted of counts II and IV (charging Myers with exposure that occurred on August 11, 2003 and August 29, 2003, respectively) and acquitted Meyers of counts I and III (charging Meyers with exposure that occurred on May 11, 2003 and August 21,2003, respectively). (J.A. 9-10.) On August 25,2004, the court granted Meyers’ post-trial motion for a new trial as to count II. Meyers was sentenced to six months of supervised probation, fifty hours of community service and a fine of $100 for his conviction on count IV. This timely appeal followed.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Jurisdiction

Our appellate jurisdiction to review final judgments in criminal matters is set forth in The Omnibus Justice Act of 2005, Act No. 6730, § 54; and the Revised Organic Act of 1954 § 23A, 48 U.S.C. § 1613a.2

B. Void for Vagueness Standard of Review3

“Void for vagueness simply means that criminal responsibility should not attach where one could not reasonably understand that his contemplated conduct is proscribed.” United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S. Ct. 808, 98 L. Ed. 989 (1954); United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 33, 83 S. Ct. 594, 9 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1963).

*870To satisfy constitutional due process requirements,4 a criminal statute must give fair notice of the conduct that would subject one to penal consequences. See Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 322 (1926) (citations omitted); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-358, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983) (citations omitted). The test for determining if a statute gives “fair notice” is whether the criminal conduct is stated with sufficient clarity such that men of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited and need not guess at its meaning, and whether there are set standards for its enforcement. See Connally, 269 U.S. at 391; Soto v. Gov’t of the V.I., 344 F. Supp. 2d 450, 454, 46 V.I. 363 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2004).

A statute touching on First Amendment freedoms may be attacked as vague “on its face.” United States v. Nat’l Dairy Prod. Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 83 S. Ct. 594, 9 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1963).5 However, statutes regulating other types of conduct will be invalidated only if they are vague in light of the conduct of the party challenging the statute i.e., “as applied.” Id.; see also Soto, 344 F. Supp. 2d at 454 (citing Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. 455 U.S. 489, 494-95, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. 2d 362 (1982) (citations omitted); United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7-8, 67 S. Ct. 1538, 91 L. Ed. 1877 (1947) (citations omitted) (“the Constitution does not require impossible standards”; all that is required is that the language “conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices....”); see also Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1199-1200 (3d Cir. 1988).

*871Hence, unless a First Amendment challenge is raised, a criminal defendant’s vagueness challenge “can only be raised by a defendant whose own conduct arguably did not fall within the terms of the statute”. United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251, 259 (3d Cir. 2001). If the conduct falls clearly within that proscribed by the statute, the vagueness challenge must fail. See id. (noting that sufficiency of the notice given by a statute is to be examined “in light of the conduct with which a defendant is charged,” and a defendant whose conduct “is at the core” of the activities clearly covered by the statute’s terms may raise a vagueness defense only if the statute is one that is likely to chill the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct); Gov’t of the V.I. v. Steven, 962 F. Supp. 682 (D.V.I. App. Div. 1997); Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 755-56, 94 S. Ct. 2547, 41 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1974) (citations omitted) (“one to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.”). We have previously held that, “[w]here the general class of offenses can be made constitutionally definite by reasonable construction of the statute, the reviewing court has a duty to give the statute that construction.” Steven, 962 F. Supp. at 684-85.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Whether 14 V.I.C. § 1022(a)(1) is void for vagueness

Meyers challenges the statute as vague as it is applied to his conduct. The statute at issue provides, in relevant part, that it is obscene and indecent conduct to expose one’s “person or the private parts thereof in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby, or... [to] make[ ] any other exhibition of himself to public view or to the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency . .. .” 14 V.I.C. § 1022(a)(1) (emphasis added). What constitutes “obscene” conduct under the statute is further defined as that conduct which,

to the average person, applying contemporary standards, the predominant appeal of the matter, taken as a whole, is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and is matter which is utterly without redeeming social importance.

14 V.I.C. § 1022(a)(1).

*872Meyers was charged with four counts of “exposing] his private body parts in a place where there were present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby and/or [with exhibiting] himself to public view or to the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency,” pursuant to title 14, section 1022(a)(1) of the Virgin Islands Code. (J.A. at 7-8.) He argues that the statute under which he was charged is unconstitutional under Connally and its progeny because it fails to specify its intent to criminalize conduct occurring within the privacy of one’s own property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Meyers additionally contends that the statutory requirement that the conduct be such that could offend others is also impermissibly vague because it purports to criminalize conduct which may be “ ‘offensive’ to some and not others.” (App. Br. 11.) This Court disagrees and, for the following reasons, holds the relevant statute is not unconstitutional as applied to Meyers.6

Section 1022(a)(1) lists various ways in which the indecency statute may be violated. Because each phrase of the statute is connected with the disjunctive “or” in a context that clearly contemplates alternative types of behavior constituting the crime, they are each to be given independent meaning. See United States v. Parcel of Real Property Known as 6109 Grubb Road, Millcreek Tp. Erie County, Pa., 886 F.2d 618, 626 (3d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted) (“canons of construction ordinarily suggest that terms connected by a disjunctive be given separate meanings unless the context dictates otherwise”); FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 98 S. Ct. 3026, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073 (1978) (terms connected by a disjunctive must be given separate meaning); see also Sweger v. Chesney 294 F.3d 506, 516-18 (3d Cir. 2002) (the words “obscene, *873indecent, or profane” are written in the disjunctive, implying that each has a separate meaning).

Meyers was charged with “expos [ing] his private body parts in a place where there were present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby.” (J.A. 7-9.) The statute’s clear and unambiguous language, which explicitly identifies public places, places where others may be present, and places in the “public view” makes clear that the statute’s reach is not limited to areas traditionally viewed as “public places.” 14 V.I.C. § 1022(a)(1). Rather, the statute explicitly criminalizes conduct either in public places or in a place and manner that is open to the view of others. Id. at § 1022(a)(1). Indeed, a reading that construes the statute to reach only “public places” inappropriately limits the reach of the statute. Accordingly, given the plain language of sections 1021 and 1022, a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence is put on notice that engaging in nudity or sexual conduct while standing on private property will, nonetheless, subject him to criminal prosecution if members of the public are not shielded from such conduct.7

Moreover, contrary to Meyers’ arguments, there is nothing in the second clause of the statutory language that requires a showing that a specific person was actually offended by his conduct, nor is the statute’s enforcement left solely to a subjective standard of what is deemed annoying.8 But see Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1971) (citations omitted) (noting that in a void for vagueness context, “[c]onduct that annoys some people does not *874annoy others”). Rather, the statute prohibits nudity in the presence of others, conduct which society has determined to be offensive and beyond contemporary bounds of decency. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 567-569, 111 S. Ct. 2456, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1991) (citations omitted) (noting that public indecency statutes have traditionally banned public nudity and that it is well-established that the legislature could legitimately act to protect the social interest in order and morality by prohibiting such conduct).

As such, Meyers cannot claim vagueness solely because his public exposure occurred in his backyard.9 He exposed his private parts in clear view of his neighbors, despite his neighbors’ repeated complaints. As a result, his nudity fell squarely within the category of conduct prohibited by the statute, because his conduct occurred in both the presence of others and in view of others. See Martin v. State, 1983 OK CR 168, 674 P.2d 37, 39 (1983) (“[I]ndecent exposure may need not always occur in a public place. The offense may be committed any place where *875others are present, including streets and private residences . . Meyers’ vagueness challenge must therefore fail.10

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Meyers’ conviction.