Xenia police received “several complaints of a naked man in the females’ locker room” of the YMCA branch, which is located on Progress Drive in Xenia, according to the criminal complaint.
Witness testimony in court last month indicated that Glines had been in a state of complete undress during all three incidents, which happened in the common area of the women’s locker room.
All three complainant witnesses who testified in court March 20 said they did not see Glines’ genital area, either because they had removed themselves from the situation, or because the area was covered by other parts of the body.
In the final brief filed by the defense, Glines’ lawyers say that the state presented “little to no evidence of several of the essential elements” required to convict a person of indecent exposure.
In their 29-page filing, Glines’ lawyers cite extensive legal precedent that the state’s burden of proof as defined by Ohio law, is that the defendant “recklessly exposed their genitalia” under circumstances in which the exposure is likely to be viewed by others, is likely to affront others, the others are in the persons, physical proximity, and are not members of the persons household.
The defense says the prosecution is required to prove each of these elements.
“No evidence was provided to prove that exposure actually occurred,” the filing reads.
According to the prosecution’s filing, while the Ohio Supreme Court has not directly addressed it, Ohio appellate law has consistently found that the burden of proof is upon likelihood of exposure, rather than actual viewing of one’s private parts.
The defense offered “absolutely no evidence in its case, in chief countering that the defendant was obviously naked in the women’s locker room,” per the filing.
In the defense’s filing, however, Glines’ lawyers argued that this is a conflation and obfuscation of separate, distinct elements of Ohio law.
“Here, there was zero evidence presented that is Glines ever exposed her genitals. Therefore, the state has presented zero evidence that there was ever any risk that generals could be exposed, let alone, whether or not that risk was known to Ms. Glines,” the filing reads.
“Without proof of exposure, all of the attendance circumstances fail as well,” lawyers wrote.
In the prosecution’s filing, attorneys wrote that regardless of her gender identity, Glines showed recklessness by disregarding posted guidelines at the YMCA to “remain properly covered” in public areas of the locker room.
“The defendant’s actions displayed a heedless indifference to the consequences when they disregarded the posted YMCA guidelines in the locker room,” the filing reads.
Additionally, the prosecution wrote, the defense’s argument hinges on Glines’ body type as a means of modesty.
“Logic and common sense dictate that morbid obesity does not constitute a form of clothing,” the filing reads.
Xenia Municipal Court staff declined to give a specific timeline for the final ruling of the case, but said that rulings in misdemeanor cases will typically be filed within 30 days of the final briefs.
Xenia Municipal Court Judge David McNamee, who is overseeing the case, declined to comment before the ruling.
About the Author
