The Supreme Judicial Court today overturned a Dorchester man's convictions for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior at the Hynes Green Line stop in October, 2010 because prosecutors didn't present any witnesses to testify they were "shocked" or "alarmed" at the way he openly displayed his genitals, as required by Massachusetts public-decency laws.

Lawrence Maguire was arrested while awaiting trial on a similar charge for an incident on the Red Line two months earlier. A Boston Municipal Court jury found him not guilty in that case; another jury then convicted him in the Hynes case.

At Maguire's trial on the Green Line incident, a Transit Police detective testified he was "disgusted" at watching Maguire appear to rub one out in the direction of two or three women sitting on a bench on the outbound side of Hynes. In court, the detective demonstrated the action Maguire was allegedly taking during his testimony. He added Maguire spotted him, zipped up and tried to run away and that he never spoke to the women.

But state law and past court decisions relating to such activities require proof that somebody expressed "shock" or "alarm" at them for conviction, and the detective's disgust - and concern about the women he thought were being "victimized" - was not enough, because "disgust" is not the same as "shock" or "alarm," the state's highest court ruled.

In this case, the detective was the only eyewitness who testified to the defendant's conduct. There was no evidence that the women seated on the bench or any other person noticed the defendant or his actions. The detective's testimony was that he was "disgusted" after viewing the defendant's exposed penis, not for himself, but rather out of "concern" for the women seated on the bench. While we do not discount the sincerity of the detective's concern, there is nothing to suggest that the women themselves experienced any strong negative emotion, such as fright or intimidation. ... Indeed, the women remained seated while the detective traversed the station platform and stairs, and while the defendant's penis was exposed.

The court continued, by delineating the difference between "disgust" and "shock" and "alarm:"