State v. E.G., 377 P.3d 272

Juvenile E.G., age 17, sent a text to 22-year-old T.R. containing a photo of his erect penis and a message referencing her and her infant daughter; police traced the phone to E.G., who admitted it was his penis.
E.G. was charged in juvenile court with second-degree dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct (RCW 9.68A.050(2)(a)) and harassing telephone calls; parties stipulated to facts, harassment count was dismissed, and E.G. was adjudicated on the dealing charge.
The trial court imposed a mitigated disposition (time served) and required sex-offender registration; E.G. appealed, arguing constitutional defects and urging a narrower statutory interpretation to exclude self-produced images by minors.
Amici (ACLU Washington and Juvenile Law Center) supported E.G.’s construction argument; the State defended the statute’s application. The juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment — whether self-produced minor pornography is protected	E.G.: transmission of his image is expressive conduct; statute overbroad for prohibiting self-produced images	State: child pornography receives no First Amendment protection; minors have no greater right than adults to create/distribute such material	Court: statute applies; child pornography is categorically unprotected, so First Amendment claim fails
Vagueness — whether statute fails to give fair notice that self-taken images are covered	E.G.: ordinary persons (minors) would not expect self-images to be criminalized; sexting prevalence shows confusion	State: statute text plainly prohibits dissemination of sexually explicit images of a minor; no ambiguity shown	Court: statute is not unconstitutionally vague; text gives fair notice and challenger failed to meet burden
Statutory construction / policy (sexting) — whether statute should be read to exclude minors sending self-images	Amici/E.G.: legislative intent and policy favor excluding consensual sexting between minors or self-produced images	State: statute’s plain terms prohibit dissemination of images of a minor; legislature may rationally prohibit self-produced images to suppress market and protect minors	Court: plain language controls; no exception for self-produced images; policy arguments for legislative change are for legislature, not court

Lummi Indian Nation v. State, 170 Wn.2d 247 (2010) (standard of review and presumption of constitutionality)
City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664 (2004) (as-applied vs facial constitutional challenges)
State v. Motherwell, 114 Wn.2d 353 (1990) (overbreadth doctrine in First Amendment context)
City of Seattle v. Huff, 111 Wn.2d 923 (1989) (definition of overbroad laws)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography categorically unprotected)
State v. Luther, 157 Wn.2d 63 (2006) (treatment of child pornography under the First Amendment)
State v. Halstien, 122 Wn.2d 109 (1993) (vagueness doctrine and clarity when First Amendment rights implicated)
Five Corners Family Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296 (2011) (avoidance of absurd statutory constructions)