"I thought I should do something but it was like he was just one stupid guy."
At first she thought it was a man urinating in public but as she got closer it was clear the act was more depraved.
The complainant said on the August occasion, the man appeared more confident and he stood closer to her, prompting another call to police.
Because of the woman's description and the fact the defendant had previously been granted diversion for doing an indecent act - masturbating in his car in Mt Eden - he became the main suspect in the case.
Five days after interviewing the complainant, Constable Dimitry Pantileev showed her a photo board on which she picked out the defendant but his lawyer Ron Mansfield questioned the way the identification procedure had been executed.
The woman had previously been shown a photo board over the earlier incident and could not pick out the man.
The only common picture between the two boards was that of the defendant, which was in the same position as it had been at her first viewing.
Mr Mansfield suggested that jeopardised the validity of the identification.
The defence lawyer was also critical of other areas of the police investigation.
His client was described as wearing a green beanie and brown T-shirt, but police never considered a search warrant to look for the garments.
Mr Pantileev also confirmed when he arrested the defendant on August 30 he did not ask to have a look around his house.
He said in his experience, sometimes people got rid of clothing in which they committed offences.
Today's portion of the hearing only covered the prosecution's case. Defence will call evidence when the trial continues in April.
According to a website listing the professionals in the heavily regulated industry the defendant works, he is still employed.
