State v. Hughes, 261 P.3d 1067

Hughes was charged with multiple crimes, including NRS 200.710, for allegedly producing pornography involving a minor.
He created three digital videos of himself engaging in sexual intercourse with a person identified as a 17-year-old.
The district court dismissed the NRS 200.710 charge as void for vagueness and because it allegedly covers only individuals under 16.
The state appealed, arguing the term “minor” has a settled meaning under 18 and that the statute is not vague.
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that “minor” has a well-settled meaning under 18 and that NRS 200.710 is not unconstitutionally vague; it remanded for further proceedings, with a concurring opinion noting drafting imprecision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is NRS 200.710 vague as applied to ‘minor’?	State asserts ‘minor’ means under 18; no vagueness	Hughes contends ‘minor’ could be ambiguous or means under 16	Not vague; ‘minor’ means under 18
Does the term ‘minor’ have their well-settled meaning in related statutes?	Statutory context supports 18 as threshold	Extrinsic aids show ambiguity; not necessary to rely on related statutes	The term is consistently defined as under 18; related statutes do not render it ambiguous
Does equal protection or policy justify different ages for consent vs. pornography?	Rational basis supports 18+ for porn production	No constitutional issue beyond vagueness	Rational basis acknowledged; did not affect outcome on vagueness

Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1990) (vagueness of 'minor' defeated by well-settled meaning under 18)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (vagueness doctrine two-fold: notice and standardless enforcement)
Silvar v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 289, 129 P.3d 682 (Nev. 2006) (vagueness standard under Nevada law)
Castaneda v. State, 245 P.3d 550 (Nev. 2010) (statutory interpretation to avoid vagueness; use of ordinary meaning)
Berry v. State, 212 P.3d 1085 (Nev. 2009) (interpretive guidance on statutory meaning)