In August, 1997, Kent Jesse Carr was in a men's room in a shopping center when another man entered. The man entered a stall; Carr went into an adjacent unit. The former thought he saw Carr peering over the wall at him, and after Carr left the stall and resumed peeping at him through the space between the door and the wall, he knew he was being watched. After a brief confrontation, Carr left the restroom. The man and two of his friends followed Carr to his place of employment, finally effecting his arrest. Cam was charged with, and convicted, of, lewdness by trespassory voyeurism.
Carr appealed and argued that the prosecution had to prove he trespassed on real property while engaging in voyeurism. Trespassory was not defined in the statute, He also argued that the lewdness statute required a jury instruction as to Carr's intent to seek sexual gratification from the alleged criminal activity. Jury instruction was not provided at the conclusion of his trial, which Carr maintained resulted in reversible error.
Holding: Reversed and remanded. Since the term trespassory as a modifier for voyeurism was not defined by the legislature, the appellate court looked to the dictionary to arrive at the term's plain meaning. Trespassory was defined in the dictionary as "infringing upon the privacy...of another." Therefore, proof that Carr trespassed on real property was not required for conviction. Although Carr did not object to the absence of the jury instruction at trial, the court held that it constituted manifest injustice to fail to give a jury instruction which sets forth the elements of the crime charged. Its absence is, therefore, reversible error, notwithstanding the failure to object. One of those elements was whether Carr sought sexual gratification from the encounter. Since the jury made no finding thereon, a new trial was necessary to make that determination.
| Barbara Bartlik, M.D. Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry Weill Medical College of Cornell University |
Dr. Bartlik comments: Voyeurism involves sexual arousal by the act or fantasy of observing an unsuspecting individual in the act of having sex, being naked or disrobing. Voyeurism can be present in varying degrees of intensity, from episodic bouts during times of stress, to each and every time the person engages in sexual activity, in an obligatory manner. Usually the condition begins early, in the teens and is chronic throughout the person's life. Voyeurism tends to diminish in middle or old age. To meet diagnostic criteria, the condition must cause significant distress or result in significant impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning, or result in arrest or incarceration.
Voyeurism can coexist with other paraphilias, in which case, two or more paraphiliac diagnoses may be made. The current case is not typical in that it involves watching someone who is not just undressing, but also using the toilet. Therefore, this individual may have, in addition to voyeurism, coprophilia and/or urophilia, in which case he would be sexually aroused by observing someone defecate or urinate, respectively.
The individual in question also was not the typical voyeur in that he took very little care not to get caught. Given his proximity to the victim and his exposure, he was quite likely to have been found out. Several reasons could be proposed to explain his risky behavior. First, perhaps he was fairly certain that if he were caught he would have time to get away. Few individuals would have the wherewithal or the motivation to follow the perpetrator and actually to have him apprehended.
Secondly, perhaps he used peeking as a method of signaling interest in a homosexual liaison. He reportedly stood there and made eye contact with his victim for a few seconds until his victim yelled, during which time he may have been trying to gauge whether or not the. man was receptive. Voyeurs typically do not want to have physical contact with their victims, though they often fantasize about it. Often, their capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity is impaired, and when they are with a consenting adult, they experience sexual dysfunction.
Thirdly, he may have a concurrent psychiatric disorder that has impaired his judgment and impulse control. For example, a person who is mentally retarded, schizophrenic or demented, whose opportunities for sexual activity with appropriate partners are limited, may take risks and engage in unusual sexual behavior. Also, persons experiencing manic states, who may be hypersexual as a result, are capable of such lapses in judgment.
The same is true for individuals who suffer from personality changes due to general medical conditions, medication or substance intoxication. However, in these situations, the paraphiliac sexual activity is not the preferred mode of sexual behavior, tends to be isolated rather than chronic, and occurs later in life and in concert with psychiatric symptoms.
