What constitutes lewdness involving a child in a private home setting? State v. Titus Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the boundaries of lawful adult nudity in the home in State v. Titus, affirming convictions for lewdness involving a child despite the defendant’s arguments about privacy rights in his own residence.

Background and Facts: Mark Scott Titus was convicted of two counts of lewdness involving a child after exposing his genitals to two friends of his son, both eight or nine years old. The incidents occurred in Titus’s home while he watched pornographic material on television. One boy testified that Titus told him he had to undress to watch the program, while the other boy undressed without being specifically told to do so. The boys testified they felt uncomfortable or scared during these encounters.

Key Legal Issues: The case turned on whether Titus exposed himself “under circumstances [he] should know will likely cause affront or alarm” under Utah Code section 76-9-702.5. Titus argued his nudity was non-sexualized and occurred in the privacy of his own home, where adults generally have the right to be nude.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The court applied the clear error standard to review the bench trial findings. While acknowledging that “people are entitled to be nude in the privacy of their own homes,” the court distinguished this case from innocent household nudity. The critical factors were that Titus exposed himself while viewing sexually-oriented material and while the boys were themselves undressed, with one boy testifying that undressing was required to watch the program. The court found these circumstances created a sexualized context that should have alerted Titus to the likelihood of causing affront or alarm.

Practice Implications: The decision clarifies that context matters significantly in lewdness cases. Adult nudity in the home, while generally permissible, becomes criminal when combined with sexually explicit material and minor victims. Defense counsel should focus on distinguishing sexualized conduct from innocent nudity. The court also rejected Titus’s challenge to the adequacy of findings, emphasizing the importance of preserving such claims by objecting when trial courts offer to provide additional detail.