"This is the 2016 Penal Code," said Public Defender Luke Brownfield, showing the Kinley jury the book and placing it on the table. "On that morning, Mr. Kinley committed a few crimes. Drunk in Public. Mr. Kinley is guilty of this crime. Indecent exposure. He is not guilty of it."
"Indecent exposure is a specific intent crime. You have to get into his head to prove what Mr. Kinley was thinking. Likely is not our standard of proof."
"He is intoxicated, that is a defense to this crime. That doesn't make sense to us because he got voluntarily drunk. It is not a defense to most crimes but to Count 1 it is a defense."
"It's pretty clear he is masturbating, we don't dispute the facts, but what was going on in his head.?"
Mr. Brownfield said this despite that just moments earlier, Judge Feeney said that the voluntary intoxication was being offered for a limited purpose. It was not a defense to public intoxication. The jury had this written instruction.
In her rebuttal argument, Deputy District Attorney Whitney Barnes, said, "I don;t have to prove to you why he did it. I don;t have to prove motive to you."
"All I need to prove to you is intent; is that he intended for the purpose of sexual arousing himself." Then she added, "for all the reasons argued (in her closing argument)."
"The fact that the defendant was intoxicated is not a defense based on the testimony we heard."
"The defendant tried to game the system. He lied to the officer. He gave the officer a false name. Now, he is lying to all of you."