ATL Public Service Announcement: If You Want To Screw a Mannequin, Turn Off the Lights First
Statutory interpretation is fun! Check out this wacky fact pattern, perfect fodder for a criminal law final exam, from Court TV News (via Blogonaut):
In a 5-0 ruling, the [South Dakota Supreme Court] overturned the conviction of Michael James Plenty Horse for indecent exposure because he didn't attempt to arouse others when he tried to have sex with the mannequin in a dark, closed room at a YMCA in Sioux Falls, S.D.On Nov. 14, 2005, Plenty Horse, then 19, went to the YMCA's Alumni Room, which housed memorabilia and photos of local high school students, including a mannequin wearing a band uniform, on the second floor of the building.
Once inside the empty room, he closed the door, turned off the lights, took the mannequin over to a desk and began trying to have sex with it, according to court documents.
A security guard opened the closed door, turned on the lights and saw Plenty Horse on top of the partially undressed mannequin, his pants down and a wadded piece of paper in his hand, court documents said.
Plenty Horse immediately rolled off the mannequin and began adjusting his pants when he saw the security guard, according to the ruling. When questioned by police, he said he had not seen his girlfriend in a year.
Grounds for a temporary insanity defense? Wisely, his lawyers took a different approach:
Plenty Horse's attorney argued throughout the legal fight that, while what the young man did with the mannequin would likely offend people, he did not "flash" his genitals "in hopes of being observed, thereby gratifying himself sexually."
The defense succeeded in getting him off:
"Nothing establishes that his conduct was done with the specific intent to generate sexual arousal or gratification by the act of publicly exposing, displaying or offer to the public view, his genitals," the ruling said. "Therefore, the defendant's act, lewd though it may have been, does not fall within the purview of the indecent exposure statute."
Good stuff. You can read the full opinion here (PDF, via How Appealing).
Sex with a mannequin? S.D. Supreme Court says keep it behind closed doors [Court TV via Blogonaut]
State v. Plenty Horse [Supreme Court of South Dakota (PDF) via How Appealing]
Comments
FIRST
Posted by: firstyfirst | November 14, 2007 11:42 AM
Was the mannequin a boy or a girl? 'Cause if it was a boy, well that's just sick.
Oh, yeah... FIRST!
Posted by: First! | November 14, 2007 11:43 AM
Lat, you write an awful lot about sex stuff. Do you think you might have some sort of addiction?
Posted by: anon | November 14, 2007 11:43 AM
THIRD!
Posted by: anonymous | November 14, 2007 11:44 AM
He should change his name to "Plenty Splinters," "Big Chief Woodcock," or "Dances with Stumps"
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 11:45 AM
Is this sort of thing frowned upon? Because I had no idea.
Posted by: George Costanza | November 14, 2007 11:46 AM
White Mannequins With Asian Guys
Posted by: wmwag | November 14, 2007 11:47 AM
11:43,
Would you rather read about the latest distinction made by the 9th Circuit in a no-knock raid case? That's fine if you do, but you can't expect that at ATL. Volokh is right next door, if this is too low brow for you.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 11:49 AM
"the defense succeeding in getting him off".... badabing! Lat's here all week, don't forget to tip your blogger.
Gallion OUT!
P.S. As an aside, it's safer to just mail order your own mannequin.
Posted by: Gallion | November 14, 2007 11:49 AM
"The defense succeeded in getting him off"
At least someone did. Poor guy.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 11:49 AM
Well, if this world runs out of lovers, they'll still have each other.
Posted by: Starship | November 14, 2007 11:56 AM
"Pleanty Horse"?
The guy should be in video porn.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 11:57 AM
The Mannequin should be thankful. She didn't have $90k in student loan debt to show for her trouble.
Posted by: Loyola 2L | November 14, 2007 12:04 PM
Loyola 2L:
Can you let us talk about humping mannequins this time? Please?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 12:08 PM
11:56,
Quite funny - nothing is going to stop them now.
Posted by: 11:56 is funny | November 14, 2007 12:20 PM
Why didn't they prosecute for statue-tory rape?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 12:21 PM
This one time, at band camp...
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 12:26 PM
I love that he was "trying" to have sex with the mannequin, not "succeeding" in any way!
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 12:52 PM
1145 and 1157: not funny, but nice job with the racism!
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 01:02 PM
Plenty Horse to relationship counselor:
"Do we have a good sex life? I don't know. she just kind of lies there."
Posted by: transfer | November 14, 2007 01:07 PM
Obviously the guy couldn't afford a RealDoll. Too bad for him.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 02:51 PM
Oh I got the Horse alright, but there sure wasn't Plenty of it that's for sure!
Posted by: Violated Mannequin | November 14, 2007 03:59 PM
"Hollywood" and Estelle Getty are proud.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 06:59 PM
lol She's the dummy!!!!! Best 80s movie ever!
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 10:26 PM
Every time when I think I have seen the most absurd piece of American life, Lat comes up with something even more grotesque and has me rolling helplessly on the floor with laughter. Thanks, this site always makes my day! BTW, are there really still statutes around prohibiting putting men´s and women´s underwear on the same clothes-line? Cheers,
Posted by: eurolawyer | November 15, 2007 07:15 AM