Indecent Exposure

Were you charged with indecent exposure in San Antonio? Watch this video to learn the types of defenses we can enact. Free consultations.

Read Our FREE Sex Crimes Guide

Question: What are the penalties for indecent exposure in Texas?

Answer:

If you’ve been charged with indecent exposure, it’s really important to get a lawyer to represent you that understands the charge and understands the ramifications. For indecent exposure, if you’re convicted or placed on deferred one time for that offense, you don’t have to register as a sex offender. Down the road, if you’re ever charged for a second indecent exposure, then you have to register as a sex offender for 10 years. It’s really important to avoid that initial charge.
Indecent Exposure
Indecent exposure can occur when someone exposes their genitalia in public or in a situation where someone is likely to be offended by that. A lot of times, it’s an issue of ID. It’s an issue of whether the person was reckless. It’s a multi-prong case; the definition is pretty complicated for the offense, so it does leave room for a defense. We usually look at the case, after collecting all the evidence, and we make a decision If we can’t fight the case, can we avoid a conviction and get a deferred adjudication? The problem with indecent exposure, again, is that anytime down the road if you get a second charge, you have the potential to register as a sex offender.


Were you or a loved one charged with indecent exposure? Contact a San Antonio sex crime lawyer at Rush & Gransee today for a consultation on your case and all of your potential defenses. Let our experience work for you.

Attorney Kurt W. Gransee has achieved the highest rating of superb on Avvo.

Successful Case Defending Indecent Exposure

O. S. – The defendant was charged with indecent exposure.  The case against the defendant was developed in an unusual manner.  The police spotted the defendant driving a car that matched a vehicle being driven by someone wanted for numerous cases of indecent exposure.  The police approached the defendant after he exited his vehicle which was recorded on video.   The police believed he matched the witnesses’ description of the perpetrator and he was wearing similar clothes as described by witnesses.   The police did not arrest the defendant at this time but instead went back to the witness and asked her to view the videotape of their encounter with the defendant.  She identified the defendant as the person who exposed himself.  The witness also identified the defendant in a photo-array and in court at a pretrial hearing.  The Court threw out the witnesses’ identifications after a pretrial hearing contesting the identification process as being too suggestive and that it violated our clients due process rights.  The court’s ruling on the pretrial motions gutted the prosecution case.  The case was then dismissed and expunged.