State v. Castaneda
126 Nev. 478
Nev.2010Background
- Castaneda was arrested for intentional open and indecent or obscene exposure of his genitals on a Las Vegas street corner outside the county jail.
- A witness in a nearby car observed the exhibitions and notified police, leading to Castaneda’s indecent exposure charge under NRS 201.220.
- Castaneda challenged NRS 201.220(1) as facially vague and overbroad; the district court dismissed the charges.
- Nevada courts read NRS 201.220(1) as incorporating the common-law prohibition against genital exposure via NRS 193.050.
- The Court held NRS 201.220(1) is limited to the common-law ban on exposing genitals or the anus in an open and indecent or obscene manner.
- The amended information’s reference to exposure of buttocks was treated as surplusage; buttocks alone do not fulfill the offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of NRS 201.220(1) | Castaneda argues the statute is vague as to what body parts trigger liability. | State contends common-law incorporation provides sufficient notice and standard. | Statute is not unconstitutionally vague when read with common-law definitions. |
| Scope of 'person' in NRS 201.220(1) | Castaneda contends 'person' is too broad and could cover non-genital exposures. | State asserts 'person' historically euphemizes genitals; broad protection against exposure applies. | NRS 201.220(1) targets genitals or anus, not all body parts; buttocks alone are not enough. |
| Incorporation of common law via NRS 193.050 | Question whether incorporating common-law definitions creates vagueness. | Incorporation provides precise boundaries for indecent exposure. | NRS 193.050(3) incorporation yields sufficiently definite meaning for indecent exposure. |
| Overbreadth | Statute could chill expressive conduct (nude art, breastfeeding, etc.). | Overbreadth not shown; conduct here is unambiguously prohibited. | Statute is not fatally overbroad in relation to its legitimate scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) (public indecency statutes are ancient and narrowly tailored)
- Duvallon v. District of Columbia, 515 A.2d 724 (D.C. 1986) (genital exposure is the core of indecent exposure; 'person' = penis)
- Young v. State, 849 P.2d 336 (Nev. 1993) (NRS 201.220(1) incorporates common law; intentional genitals exposure unlawful)
- Quiriconi v. State, 591 P.2d 1133 (Nev. 1979) (exposure of more than minimal body parts can be indecent)
- Ebeling v. State, 91 P.3d 599 (Nev. 2004) (upholding conviction where exposure was intentional and open/indecent)
- Silvar v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 129 P.3d 682 (Nev. 2006) ( vagueness doctrine applies to both notice and discriminatory enforcement)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) ( vagueness and standardless enforcement concerns in statutory offenses)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (Supreme Court 2008) ( vagueness principles applied to notice and enforcement)