Defendant took sexually explicit photos of his 16-year-old stepdaughter, and was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under a state statute. The defendant challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague on its face, claiming it could apply to an innocent photo of a baby in a bathtub.
The court held the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, finding the statute’s provision that the exploitative actions must be “for purposes of sexual stimulation” added clarity, rather than ambiguity to its provisions. The court reasoned that the State’s interest in protecting its children from sexual exploitation was sufficiently compelling to uphold the statute.
|These materials are not intended, and should not be used, as legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances. Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations. Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome. Please send to firstname.lastname@example.org.|