SoCal court reinstates 'men only' sex charge against woman (The law applies equally)

The Fresno Bee ^ | 9-12-07 | Information from: Daily Journal

[Enterprise]

An appeals court reinstated a charge of indecent exposure against a woman who disrobed in front of a 14-year-old boy.

[Enterprise]

The essence of this case is that a judge ruled that the woman couldn't be charged because the statute was masculine in wording. The appelate court slapped this ruling down PDQ.

"The three-member panel overturned a ruling by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong, who had dismissed charges against Alexis Luz Garcia last year, ruling that the law making it a misdemeanor for someone to expose "his person" didn't apply to women.

In a ruling issued Aug. 28, the appeals panel noted that another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."

[newzjunkey]

If only more of the law were applied equally.

[CzarNicky]

is she hot?

[Enterprise]

I don’t know what she looks like, so I can’t render an opinion about guilt or innocence.

[vikingd00d]

>>I don’t know what she looks like, so I can’t render an opinion about guilt or innocence.

From the article, the woman intended her disrobing to PUNISH the 14-year-old. I think that ought to give you a clue.

[decimon]

[decimon]

If convicted, Garcia faces up to a year in county jail and would have to register as a sex offender for life.

The sex offender registry will read like a phone book if this keeps up.

[Enterprise]

She disrobed to PUNISH the boy.

[Enterprise]

LOL - punish me, punish me!

[Night Hides Not]

How come stuff like this never happened when I was 14?

And I played a lot of basketball!