A next-door neighbour's complaint about driveway noise boiled over with the angry man flashing his penis at her, a woman told a jury in Gisborne District Court this week.

The man pleaded not guilty to a charge of indecently exposing himself with intent to offend.

He was acquitted. His name is not being published due to the possibility of a further application for permanent name suppression.

The South American woman, whose evidence was translated by a court-appointed interpreter, said the flashing incident was a worrying escalation in a succession of unreasonable complaints by her neighbour over the past three years.

About 8am on December 14 last year, she was clearing up prunings between the properties when the man approached to within a metre, briefly exposed his penis, then left again making abusive comments. Her daughter was further down the driveway washing her car and did not see the incident.

The accused's counsel Heather Vaughn said what began as a dispute between neighbours had turned over the past three years into 'all-out war'. This allegation was a lie amid the ongoing battle.

Her client would not have done what was alleged especially given the risk passers-by might have seen or that it could have been captured on security cameras at the woman's house. (He was unaware they were not working that day.)

Opening the Crown case, the evidence for which was short, prosecutor Cameron Stuart told the jury their only task was to decide if the indecent exposure happened.

If they found it had, the rest of the charge — that it was with 'intent to offend' — would logically follow. There could be no other reasonable explanation for what allegedly occurred.

The complainant was the only witness to it.

The South American family — the woman, her husband, and their teenaged children — had been the subject of frequent complaints by the man about noise, obscene gestures and abusive comments from him, since they moved in next door about three years ago.

His behaviour was unwarranted. They were fearful of him and at one point even repositioned a security light because of their concerns but had to move it again when police told them he had complained about a breach of privacy.

Comments the man made during a police DVD interview after the woman's complaint, evidenced his animosity towards the woman and her family, Mr Stuart said.

The jury was shown the interview. In it, the man referred to the woman using a racial slur, called her a 'bitch' and said he 'wouldn't show her my penis for a million dollars'.

Ms Vaughn pointed to other aspects of the DVD as evidence the allegation was false. When confronted with it, the man's reaction was one of genuine surprise, Ms Vaughn said.

Ms Vaughn challenged the woman's honesty. There were significant omissions in her earlier police statement particularly of remarks she now claimed in court the man had made.

In response, the woman said those omissions were probably due to her English language difficulties.

At the time of her statement she was upset. She had to rely on her husband and daughter as translators.

She conceded however, she was wrong to tell the court the man made a racial slur during this alleged incident. He had not but he had made such comments at other times, the woman said.

The man's adult daughter, who lives with him, gave evidence in his defence.

She said her father was often distressed about the family next door. They played loud music, blocked the driveway, cut trees on the boundary, and one time allowed prunings to drop on to her car, damaging it.

On the morning in question, she called noise control twice about loud music coming from the neighbour's driveway. It was initially turned off but started again once noise control officers left.

In cross-examination, Mr Stuart put it to the witness she was distracted by her children in a different part of the house to her father at the time of the alleged incident. She did not know what he was doing and her suggestion he was in the toilet for more than an hour was implausible. She was covering for him. The witness denied it.

She said she would have reported her father herself if she thought he had done what was alleged.

She conceded having seen him earlier at the fence line between the properties and heard him utter what were likely 'nasty' words towards the neighbour. But she did not hear exactly what thoses words were, the woman said.