General Discussion

Eugene

(61,939 posts) Thu May 5, 2016, 11:00 AM May 2016

Case dropped against Arizona student facing charges for yearbook prank

Source: Reuters

World | Wed May 4, 2016 11:09pm EDT

Case dropped against Arizona student facing charges for yearbook prank

PHOENIX | BY DAVID SCHWARTZ

An Arizona prosecutor will not press criminal charges against a Phoenix-area high school student arrested for exposing his penis in a football team photograph published in the school’s yearbook, police said on Wednesday.

The case against Hunter Osborn, 19, will be dropped after the Maricopa County attorney declined to prosecute the Red Mountain High School student, the Mesa Police Department said in a statement.

“At this time all parties involved no longer desire prosecution and the case will be closed,” said Steve Berry, a Mesa police spokesman.

Osborn, who was 18 years old at the time, exposed his penis through the top of the waistband of his football uniform pants during a photo shoot for the high school football team on the school's bleachers, according to court records.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Osborn, who could not immediately be reached for comment, was arrested on Saturday on suspicion of 69 counts of indecent exposure and one felony count of furnishing harmful items to minors after police learned of the offending picture from the school’s principal.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Case dropped against Arizona student facing charges for yearbook prank (Original Post) Eugene May 2016 OP

He did not commit all of those offenses anyway jberryhill May 2016 #1

Well, to be fair, wasn't his penis exposed to everyone in the photo? Matt_in_STL May 2016 #2

I think in this case nobody kairos12 May 2016 #3

Perhaps jberryhill May 2016 #4

In some states, indecent exposure can be charged if you are urinating in public Matt_in_STL May 2016 #5

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

1. He did not commit all of those offenses anyway

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 11:11 AM

May 2016

The person(s) responsible for "furnishing harmful items to minors" and 68 of the counts of indecent exposure, are the editor and publisher of the yearbook. They did not have to use that photograph, and it was not his decision to put the photo into the yearbook.

"after police learned of the offending picture from the school’s principal"

Idiot principal essentially admitted that his school was responsible for distributing porn to minors.

My guess is that it slowly dawned on them all just who was criminally liable in this situation - it wasn't the kid.

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)

2. Well, to be fair, wasn't his penis exposed to everyone in the photo?

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 11:23 AM

May 2016

I could see one count overall but there must be something that states you can charge a count for each person present is my guess.

kairos12

(12,870 posts)

3. I think in this case nobody

Reply to Matt_in_STL (Reply #2)

Thu May 5, 2016, 11:43 AM

May 2016

comes out a wiener.

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

4. Perhaps

Reply to Matt_in_STL (Reply #2)

Thu May 5, 2016, 11:47 AM

May 2016

But not everyone was in the line of sight in the first place.

13-1402. Indecent exposure; exception; classification

A. A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

Still, the yearbook publisher IMHO has a bigger problem on these facts.

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)

5. In some states, indecent exposure can be charged if you are urinating in public