The state of prejudicial remarks by prosecuting attorneys, entitling defendants to a different test, was without merit, they neither appearing that jury comprehended all of them nor which they are prejudicial in figure.
As one of the officers affirmed from the trial, “Well, some comprise standing, people perambulating, some are sitting, young children happened to be playing on yard products
I dissent and choose to reverse and discharge these defendants for just two grounds: very first, because there was a total shortage of evidence (aside from evidence beyond a fair question) of the shame; second, because their unique belief is the result of the aid of facts acquired by an illegal browse.
With the exception of the fact these people were totally unclothed they could currently any group of people enjoying an outlying sunday outing
The important portion of the statute under which these defendants had been prosecuted and found guilty provides the following: “Any person whom shall knowingly make any open or indecent visibility of his / her individual or of the individual of another will probably be responsible for a misdemeanor.” (CLS 1956, A§ a [Stat Ann 1954 Rev A§ (1)].)