I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - KA- 0 2 2 3 6 - S CT
EDDI E GI LM ER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 20/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S
. RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: J U LI E A N N EPPS M I CHAEL V. W ARD AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J AC OB RA Y W
. D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: DAV I D CLARK NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 10/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE ¶1
. Thi s c a s e c omes t o the Courto n f i r s ti mpr e s s i on as t o w hethert he evi dence w as
s uf f i ci entt o supporta convi ct i on undert he “vi deo voyeur ” s t atut e, M i s s . C ode A nn. §97- 29- 63 ( R ev. 2006)
. Fi ndi ng thatthe evi dence pr ovi ded s at i s f i ed t he s t atut e, w e af

f i r m the def endant ’ s convi ct i on.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. E ddi e G i l m er w as an el ect ed cons t abl e i n M adi s on C ounty at the t i m e of hi s al l eged crim inal b eh av ior. H e se rve d w arran ts i n M a d ison C o u n ty, i n clud ing at th e P ea r O rch ard A part m ent s i n R i dgel and, M i s s i s s i ppi , w her e D ebr a C l ayt on occupi ed a s econd- f l oor ap artm en t. In M arc h 2 0 0 3 , C layto n n o ti ce d that G il m er w o u ld a rriv e a t th e P ea r O rch ard A part m ent s i n hi s of

f i ci al ve hi cl e mar ked “M adi s on C ounty C ons t abl e, D i s tr i ctN um ber3, E ddi e G i l m er ” ar ound 9: 00 p. m . a nd pa r k hi s cari n a s pace i n the apa r t m entcompl ex parki ng l otw i th hi s vehi cl e f

aci ng C l ayt on’ s apart m entabout87 f eetf r om herbal cony. G i l m er
w o u ld s ta y in h is p a rk e d c a r f o r a n h o u r o r a n h o u r a n d a h a lf b e fo re d ri v in g a w a y . ¶3. C l ayt on cont act ed t he po l i ce ab ou tG i l m er’ s s us pi ci ous behavi or . C ons equent l y, pol i ce of f i cer s conduct ed f

i ve s epar at e s ur vei l l ance ope r at i ons . O f f i cer s captur ed G i l m eron t ape, r ecor di ng C l ayt on w i th a hand- hel d vi deo cam er a w hi l e s he w as s i t t i ng i ns i de her apart m enti n f

r ontof herbal cony door , w hi ch w as ope n a boute i ght een i nches
. T he evi dence demonstr at ed t hat , w hi l e f i l m i ng, G i l m eroft en zoom ed i n on C l ayt on’ s ches tand cr ot ch ar ea. G i l m er w as i nd i ct ed on M ay 23, 2003, char ged w i th t en count s of phot ogr aphi ng a per s on i n pr i vacy w i thoutperm i s s i on. A j ury tr i al cul m i nat ed i n a convi ct i on on count s s i x thr ough ten, an d , on A u g u st 2 0 , 20 0 4 , for eac h co u n t the tri al co u rt sen tenc ed G il m er to se rve a term of f i ve yea r s , each t o run conse cut i vel y, i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . T he j udge s us pended t he sent ence s f ortw o count s , r es ul t i ng i n a s ent ence of f i f t een ye ar s i n pr i s on and f i ve yea r s of

s upervi s ed pr obat i on upon r el eas e. ¶4. G i l m erf

i l ed a M ot i on f

orN ew Tr i al a nd/ or J udgm ent of A cqui t t al N otw i ths t andi ng the V er di ct( JN O V ) on A ugus t23, 2004. The tr i al courtdeni ed G i l m er ’ s m ot i on, and G i l m er

### 3

ti m ely fil ed an ap p ea l t o this C o u rtsee k ing rev ersa l of th a t de n ial as w ell as o f th e jury
v e rd ict o f g u ilty . G ilm e r ra ise s fiv e e rro rs o n a p p e a l: I . T he T ri al C ourt E rre d i n O verr ul i ng G i l m er’ s M ot i ons f or D i r e c t e d V e r di c t as W e l l as H i s Pos t - t r i alM ot i ons f or JNO V and N ew T ri al D ue t o t he I nsuf f i ci ency of

t he E vi dence. I I . The Tri alC our t C om m i t t e d R e ve rs i bl e Err or i n O ve r r ul i ng G i l m er’ s M ot i on t o Q uash t he I ndi ct m ent f or Fai l ure t o St at e an E s s ent i al E l em ent of

t he O f f ens e. I I I . T he St at ut e I s U nconst i t ut i onal l y V ague and O ve r br oa d on i t s F ace and as A ppl i ed t o G i l m er. I V . The Tri alC our t Err e d i n O ve r r ul i ng G i l m e r ’ s O bj e ct i on t o t he I nst ruct i ons W hi ch F ai l ed t o R equi re Th at t he Ju ry F i nd T hat C l ay t on W as i n a Pl ac e W he r e a Pe r s on W oul d I nt end t o Be i n a St at e of U ndres s and H ave a R eas onabl e E xpect at i on of P ri vacy. V . T hi s C ourt Shou l d R ever s e G i l m er’ s C onvi ct i on B ecaus e t he Jury W as N ot Tol d That i t H ad t o Fi nd That Cl ay t on’ s Expe c t at i on of P ri va cy, If

A n y, H ad to B e R eason ab l e u n d er the C i rcu m st an ces.

DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt Err e d i n O ve r r ul i ng G i l m e r ’ s M ot i ons f or D i r e c t e d V e r di c t as W e l l as H i s Pos t - t r i alM ot i ons f or JNO V and N ew T ri al D ue t o t he I nsuf f i ci ency of

t he E vi dence. ¶ 5
. T h i s Co u rtr e v i e ws w hether the C our t err ed i n denyi ng a m ot i on f or di r ect ed ver di ct
u n d e r a d e n o v o sta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . W hite v. Stew m an , 9 3 2 S o . 2 d 2 7 , 3 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). “ [I ]n
cons i der i ng w hetherthe evi dence i s s uf f i ci entt o sus t ai n a convi ct i on i n the f ace of a mot i on fo r d ire c ted v e rd ict o r fo r ju d g m e n t n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e v e rd ict, th e c ritica l in q u iry is
w hetherthe evi dence s how s ‘be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthatacc us ed comm i t t ed the ac t charged , and that he di d so u nd er s uch ci rcum st ances t hat every el em ent of the o ff ense
e x iste d ; an d w h e re th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te st it is in su ffic ie n t t o s u p p o rt a

### 4

convi ct i on. ’ ” Iv

y v. S ta te , 949 So. 2d 748, at*9 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 9 (M is s . 1 9 6 8 ))
. ¶6. W hen cons i der i ng a tr i al court ’ s deni al of a m ot i on forj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the
v e rd ic t, th e s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w is d e n o v o . P o o le v. A v a r a , 9 0 8 S o . 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e trial c o u rt m u st v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty
a n d lo o k o n ly to th e s u ff ic ie n c y , a n d n o t th e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . I d . W he n e va l uat i ng the deni al of

a m ot i on fornew t r i al , t hi s C our tw i l l overturn the tr i al courtonl y i f i tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n thati tdeni ed a ne w tr i al though the verdi ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng
w ei ghtof

the evi dence
. Id . at727. ¶ 7
. T h e w e ig h t a n d th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e a re n o t s y n o n y m o u s . I d. at726. W hen det erm i ni ng w hetherthe evi dence w as s uf f i ci ent , the cr i t i cal i nqui ry i s w hetherthe evi dence i s of s uch qual i ty thatr eas onabl e and f ai r m i nded j ur or s i n the exer ci s e of f ai rand i m part i al ju d g m e n t m ig h t r e a c h d if fe re n t c o n c lu s io n s . I

d. W hen det erm i ni ng w hethert he ver di ctw as ag ains t th e o v erw h elm ing w eigh t of the e v iden ce , w e w il l no t ord er a n ew tr ial u n less w e a re convi nced thatthe ver di ctw as contr ary t o the s ubst ant i al w ei ghtof the evi dence s o that ju s tic e re q u ir e s th a t a n e w tr ia l b e g ra n te d
. I d. a t 7 2 7
. ¶8. G i l m er pl ace s i n di s put e f or the f i r s t t i m e the i nt erpr et at i on of M i s s . C ode A nn. §97- 2 9 -63 , th e statute un d er w h ich h e w as co n v ict ed , asse rt ing th at acc o rdin g t o th e p lain l anguage of

the s t atut e, the evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o pr ove tw o of t he el ement s of the
s ta tu to ry c ri m e . ¶ 9
. T h e in te rp re ta tio n o f a sta tu te is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o b y th is C o u rt . McL a m b v. S ta te , 456 So. 2d 743, 745 ( M i s s . 1984)
. T he f i r s tques t i on i n i nt erpr et i ng a s t atut e i s w hetherthe

### 5

s ta tu te is a m b ig u o u s . H

a rr iso n v. S ta te , 8 0 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). W h e n a sta tu te i s unam biguou s, this C ou rtappli es the plai n m eaning of the st atute and r efr ai ns fr om the u se
o f s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n p ri n c ip a ls
. P in k to n v. S ta te , 481 So. 2d 306, 309 ( M i s s 1985)
. T he
c o u rtm a y n o t e n la rg e o r re s tr ic t a s ta tu te w h e re th e m e a n in g o f th e s ta tu te is c le a r. State v. T r aylor , 1 0 0 M i s s . 5 4 4 , 5 5 8
- 5 9 , 5 6 s o . 5 2 1 , 5 2 3 ( 1 9 1 1 )
. I n i n t e rp r e t i n g s t a tu t e s , th i s C o u r t 's pr i m ary obj ect i ve i s t o empl oy thati nt erpr et at i on w hi ch bes ts ui t s the l egi s l atur e' s true i nt ent
o r m e a n in g . Cla rk v. S ta te ex. re l Miss iss ip p i S ta te Me d

. A ss 'n , 381 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). ¶ 1 0
. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -2 9 -6 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ) re a d s: A ny pers on w ho w i th l ew d, l i centi ou s or i nd ecent i ntentsecr et l y p ho t og raphs, f i l m s , vi deot apes , r ecor ds orotherw i s e r epr oduces the i m age of anotherper s on w i thoutthe perm i s s i on of s uch per s on w hen suc h a per s on i s l ocat ed i n a pl ace w h e re a p e rso n w o u ld in ten d to b e in a sta te o f u n d re ss a n d h a v e a re a so n a b le expec t at i on of

pr i vacy, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, pri vat e dw el l i ngs or a ny f aci l i ty, publ i c orpr i vat e, us ed as a r es tr oom , bathr oom , s how err oom , t anni ng booth, l ockerr oom , f

i t t i ng r oom , dre s s i ng room orbedr oom s hal l be gui l ty of a f el ony and u pon convi ct i on s hal l be puni s hed by a f i ne of Fi ve Thousand D ol l ar s ( $5, 000. 00) orby i m pr i s onm entof notm or e than f i ve ( 5) year s i n the cus t ody of

the D epart m entof

C orr ect i ons , orboth. ¶11. W e f

i nd that M i s s . C ode A nn. §97- 29- 63 i s not ambi guous . T he s t atut e pr ovi des f our
e lem e n ts to th is s tatu to ry c rim e : (1 ) in ten t – “ lew d , lice n tio u s o r in d e c e n t in ten t;” (2 ) a c t – “s ecr et l y phot ogr aph[ i ng] , f i l m [ i ng] , vi deot ap[ i ng] , r ecor d[ i ng] orotherw i s e; ” ( 3) l ack of
cons ent– “w i thoutthe perm i s s i on of [ the vi ct i m ] ; ” and ( 4) pr ot ect ed l ocat i on – “w hen s uch a per s on i s l ocat ed i n a pl ace w here a person w oul d i nt end t o be i n a s t at e of undr es s and have a r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacy, i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o, pr i vat e dw el l i ngs or any f aci l i ty, publ i c orpr i vat e, us ed as a r est room , bathr oom , s how err oom , t anni ng booth,

### 6

l ockerr oom , f

i t t i ng r oom , dr es s i ng r oom orbedr oom . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. §97- 29- 63 ( R ev. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶12
. R egar di ng the f

i rs tel em ent, l ew d int ent, and the thi rd el em ent, l ack o f consent, G i l m er do es not r ai se i nsuff

i ci ency of evi den ce of the S t at e’s proof o n a pp eal
. G i l m er’ s f i rs t
as s ert i on of

i ns uf f i ci ency c oncerns the s econd e l ement , the acto f “s ecr et l y” r ecor di ng the vi ct i m . G i l m erc ont ends thatthe evi dence di d nots uf f i ci ent l y s how he “s ecr et l y” r ecor ded C l ayt on bas ed on the f

actthatC l ayton w as aw ar e thatG i l m erw as r ecor di ng heron eac h
o c c a s io n fo r w h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d
. ¶13
. A s w e a re a p p l ying the plai n m eaning of this s t atute, w e w i l l loo k to W eb ster’s D i ct i onary. “Secr et l y” i s def i ned as “i n s ecr et , ” “i n s ecr ecy, ” and “ notopenl y. ” W eb ster’s Thi r d New I

nt er nat i onalD i ct i onar

y unabr i dged

2052 ( 1986)
. O f

num er ous def

i ni t i ons f or

“ se c re t,” tw o p e rtin e n t on e s a re “ d o n e o r u n d e rta k e n w ith e v id e n t p u rp o se o f c o n c e a lm e n t” and “c ons truct ed s o as t o el ude obs ervat i on ordet ect i on. ” I d. ¶ 1 4
. T h e u n d isp u ted fa c ts a re th a t G ilm e r re c o rd e d C lay to n sta rtin g a ro u n d 9 :0 0 a t n ig h t, sitti n g i n side his ve h icl e, the interior of w h ich w as d ark , ab o u t 87 fee t aw ay from C layto n ’s apart m ent , us i ng a ca m er a and i t s zoom fe atur e and c arryi ng i n hi s vehi cl e tw o s et s of bi nocul ar s . T he t i m e of

day, dark l ocat i on, di s t ance f r om C l ayt on’ s apart m entand equi pm ent f orpr oduci ng cl os e- up re cor di ngs fr om such a di s t ance cl ear l y i ndi cat e an a t t empt by G i l m er t o conce al hi s act i ons a nd el ude obs ervat i on ordet ect i on. T her ef or e, the f act s w er e s uf

f i ci ent t o s uppor ta j ury f

i ndi ng beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatG i l m eract ed “s ecr et l y” i n r ecor di ng C l ayt on.

### 7

¶ 1 5
. G ilm e r fu rth e r c o n ten d s th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su ffic ie n t to p ro v e th e fin a l ele m e n t, th e lo c a tio n e lem e n t – th a t th e re c o rd in g to o k p lac e “ w h e re a p e rso n w o u ld in ten d to b e in a st at e of und res s and h a v e a re a so n a b le e x p e c ta tio n o f p riv a c y .” H o w e v e r, as th e S tate
a ss e rts, G ilm e r h a s o v e rlo o k e d a sig n ifica n t p o rtio n o f th e sta tu te w ith in the loc a tio n e lem e n t. ¶16. T he ent i r ety of

the l ocat i on e l ementr eads thatthe cr i m i nal a ctof r ecor di ng m us t t ake p lac e : “w h e n su c h a p e rso n is lo c a ted in a p lac e w h e re a p e rso n w o u ld in ten d to b e in a sta te
o f u n d re ss an d h a v e a re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c y , inc lu d in g , b u t n o t li m ited to , p riv a te d we l l i n g s o ra n y f

a c i l i ty , p u b l i c o rp r i v a t e , u s e d a s a r e s tr o o m, b a th r o o m, s h o we rr o o m, t anni ng booth, l ockerr oom , f i t t i ng r oom , dr es s i ng r oom orbedr oom . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 7 -2 9 -6 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). A s th is is a n iss u e o f firs t im p re ss io n , w e w ill p a rse e a c h p h ra se in th is p o rt io n o f t h e s ta tu te in o rd e r t o p ro m o te c la ri ty . ¶1 7. T he l anguage “w hen s uc h a p e r s on i s l oc a t e d i n a p l a c e ” i ntr od uc e s t he l ocat i on
e le m e n t a n d e n c o m p a s s e s e v e ry p h ra s e in th a t e le m e n t w h ic h fo llo w s . Id
. N ext , qual i f yi ng
a lo c a tio n a s c o v e re d u n d e r th is s tatu te, a re tw o d e sc rip to rs: (1 ) “ w h e re a p e rso n w o u ld i nt end t o be i n a s t at e of undr es s ” and ( 2) “ have a r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacy. ” I d. T hi s i s t he l anguage w hi ch G i l m eras s ert s pr ovi des nece s s ary el ement s w hi ch mustbe p ro v e n . W e a g re e . ¶18
. H ow ever, G i l m er f ai l s t o ack no w l edg e that i m m ediat el y fol l ow i ng these descri ptor s, the s t atut e expl i ci t l y names c ert ai n pl ace s , w hi ch f i tthe pr ece di ng des cr i pt or s , “i ncl udi ng, b u tn o tl i mi t e d t o , p r i v a t e d we l l i n g s o ra n y f a c i l i t y , pu b l i c o rp r i v a t e , u s e d a s a r e s tr o o m, bathr oom , s how err oom , t anni ng booth, l ockerr oom , f i t t i ng r oom , dr es s i ng r oom or b e d ro o m .” Id
. I ti s obvi ous thatthe Legi s l atur e i nt ended by us i ng the l anguage “i ncl udi ng”

### 8

t o de s i gn a t e a s amatt e ro f l a w a l i s to f

p l a c e s whi c h w e r e i nc l ud e d i n, o rs a t i s f i ed, t he preceding descri ptor s. ¶1 9
. G ilm e r m a in tains that the li sti n g o f loca ti o n s w h ich sati sfy the loca ti o n elem e n t is
r edundantw i th r egar d t o the pr ece di ng des cr i pt or s . H ow ever , thi s Cour ti s obl i ged, w heneve r
re a s o n a b le , to re a c h a n in te rp re ta tio n w h ic h g iv e s e ff e c t to a ll th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e . D a v is
v. Mil ler , 202 M i s s . 880, 32 So. 2d 871, 873 ( M i s s . 1947)
. T hi s obl i gat i on i s eas i l y achi eved and i n acc or d w i th a l ogi cal r eadi ng of the s t atut e. C l ear l y, al l l ocat i ons i n w hi ch a pe r s on i s prot ect ed fr om vo yeu ri sm un der this s t atute w ere notcov ered by the L egis l ature i n it s l i st
as evi dence d by i t s l anguage “ i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o. ” Thi s l anguage s ugges t s thatthe l i s tof pl ace s w as notexhaus t i ve and thatpl ace s otherthan thos e l i s t ed mi ghtal s o s at i s f y the descri ptor s. ¶2 0. C ons i s t e ntwi th the p l a i n l a ng ua ge o f the s t a tut e , when t he pr ohi bi t ed r ecor di ng h a p p e n s in o n e o f th e e x p licitly listed lo c a tio n s, th e S tate n e e d n o t p ro v e a t tria l, an d th is C o u rt n e e d n o t an a ly z e o n a p p e a l, w h e th e r th e se p lac e s a re “ w h e re a p e rso n w o u ld in ten d to be i n a st at e of

undre s s and have a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy, ” as thes e ce r t ai n pl ace s
ar e l oc a t i on s d e e med a s a matt e ro f l a w t o s a t i s f

y s uc h qu a l i f

i c a t i on s . How e ve r , when t he p ro h ib ited re c o rd in g o c c u rs in a lo c a tio n o th e r th a n o n e o f th o se e x p licitly listed , the S tate
m us ts how at t ri al and t hi s C our tm us tdet erm i ne on appe al w hetherthe l ocat i on w as one "w her e a pe r s on w oul d i nt end t o be i n a st at e of undre s s and have a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy. ” A ccor di ngl y, t he i nqui ry as t o w hethert he evi dence w as s uf f i ci entt o m eetthe l ocat i on el ement , becomes w hethert he tw o des cr i pt or s ar e s at i s f i ed as a mat t erof

l aw i n thatW e take ser iously our r esponsibil ity to neither enlarge norrestri ct a statute. Traylor , 100 1 Miss. at 558- 59. The dissent al leges thatwe have re strict ed the statute in doi ng away with a porti on of the location e lement. Quite the contr ary, we have parse d the requir ement to give effect to all the wo rdsin t hestatut e. Th e pro of

of loc ati on m us t eit he r m eet thetw o d esc rip tor s, in whic h c asebo th must be proven, or

est ab lis h th at thevic tim

wa s in on e o f t hee xp lic it loc ati on s nam ed in thestatut e, which acc ordingto t

hestr uc ture an d p lain language of thestatut e in dic atethat suchloc ati on s are de em ed bytheleg isl ature a s meeting the twode scriptors . The se p lac es arepe r se pla ces wh erea person inte nds to be in a state of undress and has a reas onable expect ation of privacy. I t seems the dis sent w ould h av e u s disc ard su cha li st o f pla ces as meaning les s an d s up erf luous . Theleg isl ato rs did not choose t o precede the list with potential ly ambiguous language, such as “for example” but wi th thew ord

“ inc luding ” wh ich

in dic ate s that t

hep rec edingw ord

o r phrase i s def

initely en co m pa sse d bythesu

bs eq ue nt w ord

or p hra se. Th e o nly

rea ding whic h g ive s ef

fe ct to th e p lain m eaningof

eac h w ord

an d p hra se in th e st atute i s th at whic h a ck no wl edge s th at t

heLe gis lat

urelai d out tw o route s b y whic h th e S tat e can p rov e th e lo cation ele m ent. We simply give eff ect to e ach phras e. Th e dis sent atte m ptstop oint out a res tri ctivea pp roa chb y them ajo rity, wh en , in fa ct, it i s the dissent who att empts to restric t the langua ge of the statut e and disregard an entir e listi ng of loc ati on s in

thestatut e assu

pe rf luous . 

### 9 the r ecor di ng happene d i n one of the l i s t ed l ocat i ons and i f not , w hetherthe evi dence w as suff i ci ent t o sat i sf

y the tw o d escr i ptor s. 1 ¶ 2 1
. T h e p lac e s w h ich m e e t th e lo c a tio n e lem e n t as a m a tter o f la w a re : “ pr i vat e dw el l i ngs
or any f aci l i ty, publ i c orpr i vat e, us ed as a r es tr oom , bathr oom , s how err oom , t anni ng booth, l ockerr oom , f

i t t i ng r oom , dres si ng room orbedr oom . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. §97- 29- 63 ( R ev. 2 0 0 6 ) (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). T h e “o r” ind ica tes tha t th e re are tw o c a teg o rie s o f p lac e s in th e list. T he f i r s tcat egory i s pr i vat e dw el l i ngs . T he se cond cat egory of pl ace s cons i s t s of

publ i c and pr i vat e f aci l i t i es , a numberof

w hi ch ar e named. W i thoutques t i on, pr oof thatG i l m er
r ecor ded Cl a yt on whi l e s he was i n he ra pa r t menti s e qu i va l e ntt o pr ov i ng tha ts he w as
r ecor ded w hi l e i n herpr i vat e dw el l i ng. ¶22. T he l ocat i on el ementof M i s s . C ode A nn. §97- 29- 63 i s s at i s f i ed by pr ovi ng thatat the t i m e of the cr i m i nal act , the vi ct i m w as i n a pl ace w hi ch meet s the tw o des cr i pt or s i n the
s t a tut e . Fu r the r , we f

urthe rh ol d tha ti n a cc or da nc e wi th the p l a i n mea ni ng o f the s t atut e,

### 10

p r o v i n g th a tth e v i c t i m wa s i n o n e o f th e p l a c e s e x p l i c i t l y l i s t e d i n th e s t a tu t e wh e n th e c r i me
occurr ed i s , as a mat t erof l aw , s uf f i ci entt o pr ove thatthe vi ct i m w as i n a pl ace w hi ch sati sfi es th e tw o statu tory d esc ri p tor s o f th e p rotec ted lo ca ti o n s. A d o p ti n g G il m er’s i nt erpr et at i on w oul d, i n di r ectcontr adi ct i on of pr ece dent , r es tr i ctthe expl i ci tl anguage of the statu te a n d n o t g ive e ffect t o the leg isl ati v e inten t. T h ere fore , w e g ive e ffect t o the e n ti re
s t a tu t e a n d f

i n d t h a t , a s i ti s u n d i s p u t e d t h a tCl a y t o n wa s i n h e rp r i v a t e d we l l i n g a tth e t i me G i l m er r ecorded her, there w as suf fi ci ent evi den ce t hat the l ocati on elem ent w as m et . T hu s, G i l m er ’s fi rs tas s ert i on of err ori s w i thoutm er i t , and the tr i al courtdi d noterri n denyi ng G ilm e r’s m o tio n fo r d ire c ted v e rd ict, JN O V o r a n e w trial. II . W h e th e r th e T r ia l C o u r t C o m m itte d R e v e r sib le E r r o r in O verr ul i ng G i l m er’ s M oti on t o Q uash t he I ndi ct m ent f or Fai l ure t o St at e an E s s ent i al E l em ent of t he O f f ens e. ¶23
. T he seco nd assert i on of errorG i l m er r ai sed is that the indi ct m ent i s defect i ve becau se it fails to in c lu d e a n e ss e n tial sta tu to ry e lem e n t. ¶24. T he quest i on o f w hetheran indi ctm enti s f at al l y def

ect i ve i s an i s s ue of

l aw , and, th e re fo re , is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o b y th is C o u rt . P e terso n v. S ta te , 67 1 S o. 2d 64 7, 65 2 (M i ss. 1996)
. A n i ndi ctm entm us tco ntai n (1) the es s ent i al el ement s of the of f ens e cha r ged, ( 2) suf f i ci entf act s t o f ai r l y i nf or m the def

endantof

the cha r ge aga i ns tw hi ch he mustdef end,
an d (3) su ffi cien t f

ac ts t o en ab le him to p lead d o u b le j eo p ard y in th e ev en t of a fu ture p r o s e c u tio n fo r t h e s a m e o ff e n s e . H am ling v. U

nited States , 41 8 U
. S
. 87 , 17 7 , 94 S . C t. 2 8 8 7 , 2 9 0 7 , 4 1 L
. E d .2 d 5 9 0 (1 9 7 4 ); L o v e v. S ta te , 52 So. 2d 479, 472 ( M i s s . 1951)
. G i l m er does notr ai s e err orw i th the s uf f i ci ency of

the fact s butw i th the compl et enes s of the
e le m e n ts .

### 11

¶2 5
. F o r ea ch co u n t, the in d ictm en t r ea d that G il m er: di d w i l l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y and f el oni ous l y and w i th l ew d, l i cent i ous , ori ndece nt i nt ent , s ecr et l y vi deot ape a nd r ecor d the i m age of per s on, D ebr a C l ayt on, w i thoutherperm i ssi on, w hi l e D ebr a C l ayt on w as i ns i de of herapart m ent havi ng a r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacy, i n the C i ty of

Ri dgel and, M adi s on C ounty, M i s s i s s i pi , i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed §97- 29- 63 ( 1972) , as amended. ¶26. G i l m er con t end s t hat t he l ocati on elementi s i ncompl et e i n thati ti s l acki ng the sta tu to ry lan g u a g e “ w h e n su c h a p e rso n is l o c a ted in a p lac e w h e re a p e rso n w o u ld in ten d to be i n a s t at e of

undr es s . ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. §97- 29- 63 ( R ev. 2006)
. W e r ej ectthat
a rg u m e n t as th is C o u rt h a s h e ld : I ti s notes s ent i al , i n an i ndi ctm entf ora st atut ory cr i m e, thatthe exa ct d e sc rip tiv e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te b e u se d . E q u iv a len t w o rd s o f su b sta n tially the s ame m eani ng as thos e of the s t atut e may be s ubs t i tut ed. W her e the l anguage us ed i n the i ndi ctm enti s s uf f i ci ent l y s peci f

i c t o gi ve not i ce of

the ac t m ade u nlaw ful , and exclusi ve eno ug h t o p revent s i t s appli cat i on t o o ther act s, it is s u ff ic ie n t. P ric e v. S ta te , 8 9 8 S o . 2 d 6 4 1 , 6 5 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ). A s m e n tio n e d in th e first iss u e , the sta tu te has def i ned a pr i vat e dw el l i ng as a pl ace w her e a pe r s on w oul d i nt end t o be i n a s t at e of undr es s . C l ayt on bei ng “i ns i de of herapart m ent , ” as s t at ed i n the i ndi ctm ent , i s equi val ent t o herbei ng i ns i de herpr i vat e dw el l i ng. T hus , as the s t atut e as s i gns t o the l anguage i n the in d ictm e n t th e sa m e m e a n in g a s th e lan g u a g e th e a b s e n c e o f w h ich G ilm e r a ss e rts is f a tal, th e in d ictm e n t lan g u a g e is s u ffic ien t. G ilm e r’s se c o n d a ss e rtio n o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . T he St at ut e I s U nc ons t i t ut i onal l y V ague and O verbroad on i t s F ace and as A ppl i ed t o G i l m er. ¶27
. T his C ou rtrevi ew s the c o n sti tuti o n ali ty of M i ssi ssi pp i st atutes de novo
. T hom s v. T h o ms , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ).

### 12

¶28
. G i l m er argues that M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -29 -63 is ov erb roa d
. H e cit es State v. Steve nson , 6 1 3 N .W .2 d 9 0 (W is. 20 0 0 ), t o su p p o rt h is a ss e rtio n th a t th e M iss iss ip p i sta tu te has a chi l l i ng ef

f ecton pr ot ect ed s peec h i n thatl aw enf or cement , pr i vat e i nves t i gat or s and
re p o rte rs c o u ld b e su b

jec te d to p ro se c u tio n fo r le g iti m a te a c tiv iti e s s u c h a s film in g a fu lly
c lo th e d p e rs o n th ro u g h a n o p e n w in d o w . ¶29. Fi r s t , i t s houl d be not ed that w hi l e i t i s r ai s ed as an as s ert i on of err or , G i l m ernei ther
a d d re s s e d n o r b ri e fe d v a g u e n e s s . T h u s , th a t a rg u m e n t is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. Mis s o v. O li ver , 666 So. 2d 1366, 1369- 70 ( M i s s . 1996) ( decl i ni ng t o addr es s i s s ues r ai s ed by the appel l antw hen he di d notcom pl y w i th hi s af f i r m at i ve duty t o spec i f

i cal l y addr es s the i s s ue
a n d p r o v id e a u th o ri ta tiv e s u p p o rtfo r i ts p o s itio n ). F u rt h e r, Ste v e ns on a dd r e s s e s the
overbr eadth of

the W i s cons i n v oyeur i s m s t atut e, w hi ch i s di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the M iss iss ip p i sta tu te. T h e W isc o n sin sta tu te p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 2) W hoeverdoes any of the f ol l ow i ng i s gui l ty of

a C l as s E f

el ony: ( a) T akes a ph ot og r a ph ormake s a mot i on pi c tur e , vi de ot a pe orothe rvi s ua l r epr es ent at i on orr epr oducti on thatdepi ct s nudi ty w i thoutthe know l edge or cons entof

the per s on w ho i s depi ct ed nude, i f the per s on know s orhas r eas on to k n o w tha t th e p e rso n w h o is de p icte d n u d e d o e s n o t kn o w o f an d c o n se n t to the t aki ng orm aki ng of the phot ogr aph, m ot i on pi ctur e, vi deot ape orother v is u a l r e p re s e n ta tio n o r r e p ro d u c tio n . W is . S ta t. § 9 4 4 .2 0 5 (2 )( a ). In fin d in g th e sta tu te o v e rb ro a d , the W isc o n sin S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted :

[ t ] he s t atut e notonl y pr oper l y pr ohi bi t s St evens on' s surr ept i t i ous v id e o tap in g o f h is fo rm e r g irlfrien d in th e n u d e , b u t als o im p ro p e rly p ro h ib its al l vi s ual expr es s i on of nudi ty w i thoutexpl i ci tcons ent , i ncl udi ng pol i t i cal sat i re and n ew sw orthy i m ages.In order t o prevent pote ntial confusion r esulting from the dissent ’s a llegati ons of a due 2 pro ces s vio lation

in t hat w e h av e re m ov ed

theburden o f p rov inglew d intent, t hisCo urt rei terate s therequire m ent that theStat e m us t prov e ea ch ele m ent of thi s st atutor

y o ff en se in o rder to ob tain a v ali d c onvic tio n. As fo r what is suff ici ent to pro vethi s el em ent, s inc e G ilmer did n ot rais e an issue of sufficiency of evi dence of lewd int ent, that i ssue i s not before thi s Court, and the refore, we will not engage in an examination of the sufficiency of such evide nce. Se e Excello Feed Mil ling Co. v. United States Fidelit

y & Guaranty Co. , 145 Miss. 599, 608 (1927) (“a ground for the r eversal of



### 13 W i s cons i n St at . § 94 4. 20 5( 2) ( a) does notl i m i ti t s r eac h t o or i gi nal depi ct i ons of

nudi ty butr atheroverr eac hes t o al l r epr odu ct i on s . I tchi l l s the abi l i ty t o i ncl ude copi es of m as t erpi ece s l i ke M i chae l angel o' s "D avi d" i n a book devot ed t o f

amous s cul ptur es and al s o pr event s the di s s emi nat i on of m a te ri a ls th a t m a y p o rt ra y n u d ity fo r h e a lth o r e d u c a tio n a l p u rp o s e s . Steve nson , 613 N
. W
. 2d at95. G i l m er ’ s r el i ance on Steve nson i s mi s pl ace d be caus e t he gr ounds fort he chi l l i ng ef f ectof the W i s cons i n st atut e ar e abs enti n the M i s s i s s i ppi s t atut e. As th e S t a t e a s s e r t s , th e W i s c o n s i n s t a tu t e l a c k s a l e wd
- i n t e n tr e q u i r e me n ta n d a v i c t i ml ocat i on r equi r ement . The l ew d- i nt ente l ementof the M i s s i s s i ppi s t atut e prevent s an
overbr oad r eac h t o l egi t i m at e r ecor di ng of per s ons f

orl egi t i m at e purpos es , s uch as pol i t i cal
sa tire, n e w sw o rth y im a g e s, la w e n fo rc e m e n t su rv e ill a n c e , an d so c ially v a lu e d a rt istic pr oducti on s. B eyond the s i m pl e ac tof r ecor di ng a per s on w i thouthi s orhercons ent , the St at e mustpr ove thatthe def endantr ecor ded the vi ct i m w i th a l ew d i nt entand thatthe def endantdi d so i n a pl ace w hi ch cons t i tut es a prot ect ed l ocat i on purs uantt o t he s t atut e. T he combi nat i on of

the l ew d- i nt entr equi r ementa nd the vi ct i m - l ocat i on r equi r ementm akes the M i s s i s s i ppi s t atut e a much m or e narr ow l y t ai l ore d s t atut e. I n f act , s i nce c onvi ct i on under M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -2 9 -6 3 re q u ire s a sh o w in g th a t th e d e fe n d a n t ac ted w ith a lew d in ten t,
re c o rd in g s w h ich m e e t a ll th e o th e r s tatu to ry e lem e n ts – s e c re tly re c o rd in g , lac k o f c o n se n t, and i n a pr ot ect ed l ocat i on, such r ecor di ngs w hi ch m i ghtbe prope r l y under t aken by a pol i ce of f i cer– ar e puti n no dangerby thi s s t atut e. T her efor e, G i l m er ’ s as s ert i on as t o the 2a judgm ent is waived when th e b rie f o f t heappe llant c ontains no ref erenc e th ere to w as e xp res sly decided in N. M

. & C . R. R. C o. v. St ate , 1 10 Mis s. 29 0, 70 So . 3 55 "); McC aleb v . M cC aleb , 110 Miss. 486 , 7 0 S o. 56 3 (1 91 5), m odif ied , 1 13 Miss . 3 37 , 7 4 S o. 27 5 (1 91 7) ( a q ue sti on , n ot rais ed either by a ssignment of error or mentioned in bri ef of the ap pe ll ant, n eed not be consi dered on appeal). W e do n ote , h ow ev er, that t helewd -intent e lement c learlydistinguis he s thep oli ce o ff icers, wh o s ecretly re co rde d G ilmer w ith out his con sent fo r an ev identi ary purp os e, fro m

Gilmer, ag ain st wh om ev idenc e w as p res ented

of hisrec ordingClayto n wi thout h er c on sent in a manne r to co nc eal his acti vities, z ooming in on Clayton’s crotch and chest are as, engaging in ba ck-and -f orth hand motions behind the wheel duri ng recording, and stating on the night of his arr est, “Ain’tit funny wh at p ** ** wi ll make y ou do ?” A s such , th e diss ent can re st a ssu red that a per s e v iol ati on

of thi s statute is not est ablis he d whe n a televis ion report er simply records per sons in the l ocker room or when a private i nvestigat or simply records night -time adulterous a ctivit ies. The di ssent’ s conc lusion that people all over the state are in danger of committing a felony sim ply because they are using a recording de vice is unfounded. The only per son in danger of a convi ction under this statute is one fo r who m eac h e lement, inc ludinglew d intent, c anbepro ve n b ey on d a rea so na bledo ub t. 

### 14 o v e rb re a d th o f th e M iss iss ip p i sta tu te in th a t leg iti m a te a c tiv iti e s w ill b e im p lic a te d is
w ith o u t m e ri t. I V . The Tri alC ourt Err e d i n O ve r r ul i ng G i l m e r ’ s O bj e c t i on t o t he I nst ruct i ons W hi ch F ai l ed to R equi re Th at t he Jury F i nd T hat C l ay t on W as i n a Pl ac e W he r e a Pe r s on W oul d I nt e nd t o Be i n a St at e of U ndres s and H ave a R eas onabl e E xpect at i on of P ri vacy. V . T hi s C ourt Shoul d R ever s e G i l m er’ s C onvi ct i on B ecaus e t he Jury W as N ot T ol d T hat i t H ad t o F i nd T hat C l ayt on’ s E xpect at i on of P ri va cy, If

A n y, H ad to B e R eason ab l e u n d er the C i rcu m st an ces. ¶30
. G il m er’ s fourth and f i fth desi gn at i on s of errorconcern all eg ed erro rs i n the jury i ns truct i ons and thus , w i l l be addre s s ed s i m ul t aneous l y. H i s f our th as s i gnm entof

err or
as s ert s thatt he i ns truct i on i ncorr ect l y i nf or m ed the j ury thatG i l m ercoul d be f ound gui l ty,
w i th r egar d t o the vi ct i m - l ocat i on el ement , upon the mer e f i ndi ng thatC l ayt on w as i n her p riv a te d w e lli n g a t th e tim e o f th e a lleg e d c rim in a l ac tiv ity . G ilm e r c o n ten d s th a t th is i ns truct i on i s i ncorr ectbeca us e i ta s s um es thata pr i vat e dw el l i ng i s a pl ace w her e a per s on
w oul d i nt end t o be i n a s t at e of undr es s and have a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy.

### The t en c ounts with wh ich Gi lm er was charge d occ urred during Apriland May of 3 

### 2003. 15 G i l m er ’ s f

i f th as s ert i on of

err ori s t hatthe j ury i ns truct i ons ar e def ect i ve s i nce they do not in fo rm the jur y tha t i t m u st fin d tha t C lay to n h a d a su b jec tiv e ex p e c tatio n o f p riv a c y a s w e ll
a s th a t h e r e x p e c ta tio n m u s t h a v e b e e n re a s o n a b le
. ¶31. T he j ury i ns truct i on f oreac h of

the t en count s r ead: I f you f i nd f r om the evi dence i n thi s c as e, be yond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatthe D efe ndantE ddi e G i l m er , di d w i l l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, know i ngl y, and fe lo n io u s ly , in M a d is o n C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i, 1. on oraboutthe ____ day of _____, 2003, 3 2 . w ith lew d , li c e n tio u s o r in d e c e n t in ten t, 3. s ecr et l y phot ograph, f i l m , vi deot ape, r ecor d, orotherw i s e r epr oduce the im a g e o f D e b ra C la y to n w ith o u t th e p e rm is s io n o f t h e s a id D e b ra C la y to n , 4. w hen D ebr a C l ayt on w as l ocat ed i n herpr i vat e dw el l i ng w her e a pe r s on w oul d i nt end t o be i n a st at e of undre s s and have a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of p riv a c y ; th e n y o u sh a ll fin d th e D e fe n d a n t, E d d ie G ilm e r, g u ilty a s c h a rg e d in C o u n t I o f th e in d ictm e n t. If the S t at e has fai l ed to prove an y o ne or m ore of the ab ov e l i st ed elem ents , beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , then you s hal l f i nd the D ef

endantnotgui l ty. ¶32. E ach as s ert i on f

ai l s f orthe s ame r eas on. A s a f or ement i oned, s i nce the s how i ng that the vi ct i m w as “i n herpr i vat e dw el l i ng” al one i s s uf f i ci entt o m eetthe vi ct i m l ocat i on el ement , the f

i ndi ng be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe vi ct i m w as “ i n he rpr i vat e dw el l i ng” i s al one a s uf

f i ci entj ury i ns truct i on w i th r egar d t o thatel ementof the s t atut ory cr i m e. T h e re fo re , b o th o f th e se e rro rs a re w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶33. I n or dert o obt ai n a c onvi ct i on unde rM i s s . Code A nn. §97- 29- 63 ( R ev. 2006) , f our elem en ts m u st b e p rov en : ( 1 ) m en s rea - lew d inten t; (2 ) lack o f co n sen t; an d (3) actus r eus -
s ecr et l y r ecor di ng ( 4) i n a prot ect ed l ocat i on. T hi s C our thol ds t hatt he f actt hata vi ct i m w as

### 16

i n herpr i vat e dw el l i ng w hen the def endantcomm i t ed the actus r eus i s s uf f i ci ent , acc or di ng t o the pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e, t o s at i s f

y the pr ot ect ed- l ocat i on el ement . A ccor di ngl y,
ea ch o f G il m er’s ass erti o n s o f error a re w ith o u t m erit , as ea ch i s ba sed on a p rem ise co n tr ary t o thathol di ng. T her ef

or e, w e af

f i r m the j udgm entof

the C i r cui tC our tof

M adi s on C ounty. ¶ 3 4
. CO UNT VI : CO NVI CTI ON OF PHO TOG RAPHI NG A PERS O N I N PRI VA TE W I T HOU T P E RMI S S I ON AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, A F F IR M E D . C O U N T V II: C O N V IC T IO N O F P H O T O G R A P H IN G A P E R S O N IN P RI VA T E W I T HOU T P ER M I S S I ON AND S EN TE NCE OF F I VE ( 5 ) YE ARS I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, A F F IR M E D . C O U N T V III : C O N V IC T IO N O F P H O T O G R A P H IN G A P E R S O N IN P RI VA T E W I THOUT P ER M I S S I ON AND S EN TE NCE OF F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, A F F IR M E D . C O U N T IX : C O N V IC T IO N O F P H O T O G R A P H IN G A P E R S O N IN P RI VA T E W I T HOU T P E RMI S S I ON AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I V E ( 5 ) Y E A R S I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, A F F I R M E D . C O U N T X : C O N V I C T I O N O F PH O T O G R A P H I N G A PE R SO N IN P RI VA T E W I T HOU T P E RMI S S I ON AN D S E N T E N C E OF F I V E ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RM ED . THE S EN TE NCE I N COUNT S VI , VI I , VI I I , I X AND X S HALL RUN C O N SE C U T I V E L Y W I T H E A C H O T H E R . P U R SU A N T T O SE C T IO N 47- 7- 33 or SEC TIO N 47 - 7- 34 M I SSI SSI PPI C O D E O F 19 72 , T H E EX EC U TIO N O F T H E L A ST FI VE ( 5 ) YEARS OF THE S ENTENCES I M POS ED I N CO UNT I X AN D CO UNT X ARE ST AYED A ND TH AT PORTI O N O F TH E SENTENCE( S ) I S /ARE SUS PENDED AN D T HE AP P E L L AN T S HA L L B E RE L E AS E D O N S UP E RV I S E D P RO B AT I ON F OR A T E RM OF F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S W I T H C ON DI T I ON S UN DE R T HE SU PE R V I SI O N O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S. W AL LE R, P . J . , E AS LE Y, CA RL S ON AN D R ANDOL P H, J J . , CO NCUR. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY GR AVES AND DI CK I NSON, J J . DI CK I NSON, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEPARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y D I A Z , P .J . A N D G R A V E S , J J . DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶35. B eca us e the maj or i ty i ncorr ect l y def i nes the el ement s of

vi de o v oy e ur i s m, i n vi ol at i on
o f fu n d a m e n tal p rin c ip les o f d u e p ro c e ss , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.

### 17

¶36. A s thi s C our t r ece nt l y not ed, “[ i ] t i s bedr ock l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi that cr i m i nal s t atut es
ar e t o be s tr i ct l y c ons trued agai ns tthe St at e and l i ber al l y i n f avorof the ac cus ed. ” Colem an
v . S ta te , 9 47 S o. 2d 878, 881 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng McL a m b v. S ta te , 456 So. 2d 743, 745 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )). C h ief Justi ce Jo h n M a rsh all w rote tha t th is an cien t ru le of statutory i nt erpr et at i on “i s f

ounded on the t endernes s of the l aw forthe r i ght s of i ndi vi dual s ; and on the pl ai n pr i nci pl e thatthe pow erof puni s hm enti s ve s t ed i n the l egi s l at i ve, noti n the j udi ci al depart m ent . ” U

. S. v. W ilt ber ger , 1 8 U .S . 7 6 , 9 5 , 5 L
. E d
. 3 7 , 4 2 , 5 W h ea t. 7 6 (18 2 0 ). J udi ci al cons truct i ons notcons t rui ng s t atut es i n f avorof the of f endervi ol at e f

undament al p ri n c ip le s o f d u e p ro c e s s . D uke v. U . of Tex. , 663 F. 2d 522, 526 ( 5th C i r . 1981) , 527 ( ci t i ng D unn v. U

. S. , 4 4 2 U .S . 1 0 0 , 1 1 2 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 1 9 0 , 2 1 9 7 , 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 7 4 3 (1 9 7 9 ); Marks v. U . S. , 4 3 0 U .S . 1 8 8 , 9 7 S . C t. 9 9 0 , 5 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 2 6 0 (1 9 7 7 ); R abe v. W as hington , 40 5 U. S. 3 1 3 , 9 2 S . C t. 99 3 , 3 1 L . E d . 2 d 2 5 8 (1 9 7 2 ); B o u ie v . City o f C o lu m b ia , 378 U
. S. 347, 84 S. C t . 1697, 12 L
. E d. 2d 894 (1964) )
. Fi nal l y, any “[ a] m bi gui t i es concerni ng t he ambi tof
cr i m i nal s t atut es s houl d be r es ol ved i n f avorof l eni ty. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Busic v. U

. S. , 44 6 U. S. 3 9 8 , 4 0 6 , 1 0 0 S
. C t. 17 4 7 , 1 7 5 3 , 6 4 L . E d . 2 d 3 8 1 (1 9 8 0 ); D unn , 4 4 2 U .S . a t 1 1 2 ; Mourning
v. Fam il y Pu bli cations Ser vice, I nc. , 411 U
. S. 356, 375, 93 S. Ct
. 1652, 1663, 36 L
. E d. 2d 3 1 8 (1 9 7 3 ); U

. S. v. Cam

po s -Se r r ano , 404 U
. S. 293, 297, 92 S. C t . 4 71 , 474, 30 L
. E d. 2d 4 5 7 (1 9 7 1 ); McBoyle v. U . S. , 2 8 3 U .S . 2 5 , 2 7 , 5 1 S . C t. 34 0 , 3 4 1 , 7 5 L . E d . 8 1 6 (1 9 3 1 ); U . S.
v. Sc r im ge our , 6 3 6 F .2 d 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 2 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 1 ); T enneco O il

Co. v. P adr e D r il

ling Co. , 4 5 3 S
. W
. 2 d 8 1 4 (T ex . 1 9 7 0 )). ¶3 7. A ccor di ng l y, the St a t e was r e qu i r e d t o pr ov e the f ol l ow i ng el ement s : ( 1) “l ew d, lic e n tio u s o r i n d e c e n t in te n t;” (2 ) “ s e c re tly p h o to g ra p h [in g ], film [in g ], v id e o ta p [in g ],

### 18

re c o rd [in g ] or o th e rw ise re p ro d u c [in g ] th e im a g e o f a n o th e r p e rso n ;” ( 3 ) w ith o u t th e ir perm i s s i on; ( 4) w hen the ot her pe rs on “is l ocat ed i n a pl ace wher e a p e rs on woul d inte nd to b e in a state of

u n dress ;” an d (5) w h e re th a t p e rs o n w o u ld “h a v e a re a so n a b le expec tation of

pr i vacy .” M is s C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -2 9 -6 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ) ( e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ). ¶3 8
. U n d er th e m ajority ’s i n terpretati o n , th e S tat e is ab le t o m e e t th e fo u rth a n d fifth el ement s m er el y by pr ovi ng the per s on w as l ocat ed i n a p ri vat e dw el l i ng. T hi s i s a cl ear viol at i on of ou r rul es of s t atutory co nstruct i on , and res ult s i n a v i olat i on of due p rocess . D uke v. U

. of T ex. , 6 63 F. 2d 5 22 , 5 26 ( 5th Ci r . 1 98 1)
. The o pi ni on n e i the ra ddr es s es t he
a g e-o ld ru le of c o n stru cti o n reg ard ing crim inal statu tes n o r do es itex p lai n h o w it s i nt erpr et at i on of

the s t atut e does notvi ol at e due pr oces s . I ns t ead, t he opi ni on re l i es on D a v is
v. Mil ler , 2 02 M i s s . 8 80 , 8 90 , 3 2 So. 2 d 87 1, 8 73 ( M i s s . 1 94 7) i n s up po r to f i t s l i ber al in te rp re ta tio n in fa v o r o f th e s ta te . D a v is hel d thatcourt s m ay notcons true a s t atut e s uch that
a p o rt io n o f

i t b e c o m e s m e a n in g le s s . I d. (cit ing 5 0 A m . Ju r. , S tatu tes, S ec . 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 -64 ). T hi s pr opos i t i on a ctual l y unde r m i nes the maj or i ty’ s concl us i on, f orunderi t s i nt erpr et at i on, th e u n d re s s a n d p ri v a c y p o rt io n s o f t h e s ta tu te b e c o m e m e a n in g le s s . I d. ¶39. T he St at e pr es ent ed no evi dence that C l ayt on w as “l ocat ed i n a pl ace w her e a per s on
w oul d i nt end t o be i n a s t at e of undr es s . ” Thi s el ementcannotbe m etby t he mer e f actthat
s he w as i ns i de herapart m ent . A tal l t i m es , C l ayt on w as f ul l y cl othed, s eat ed i n f r ontof an open doorand f

aci ng a publ i c parki ng l ot . C ons i s t entw i th he rt es t i m ony, r eas onabl e per s ons
w oul d noti nt end t o be i n a s t at e o f undr es s w hi l e s i t t i ng i n f r ontof an open door
. She
r epea t edl y t es t i f

i ed thats he neve ri nt ended t o be undr es s ed w i th the bl i nds ordooropen: Q : A tanyt i m e w hen the def endantw as pr es ent , w er e you di s r obed?

### 19

A : N o. Q : W er e ther e occ as i ons , ho w e ve r , i n yourhom e w hen you w er e di s r obed? A : A s l ong as m y w i ndow w as s hutand my bl i nds w er e pul l ed.

. . . . Q : W o u ld it b e f

a ir to sa y th a t y o u g e n e ra lly d o n ’t in ten d to b e in a sta te of undr es s i n yourl i vi ng r oom orden i n fr ontof a pl at e gl as s w i ndow
w i th i topen, do you? A : N otopen. Q : O r w ith th e b lin d s o p e n . W o u ld y o u a g re e w ith th a t? A : Y es , I w oul d. ¶40. G i ven thatthe St at e f ai l ed t o provi de s uf

f i ci entevi dence of

an es s ent i al el ementof the
c ri m e , th e tr ia l c o u rte rr e d in re fu s in g to g ra n t a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t. ¶ 4 1
. T h e m a

jo rity ’s b ro a d in te rp re ta tio n o f th e c rim e h a s a lar m in g im p lica tio n s fo r a ll per s ons w ho us e a vi deo ca m er a orany otherr ecor di ng devi ce. T he L egis l atur e w as cl ear i n i t s i nt ent : T hi s l aw w as t o prot ectper s ons fr om i ntrus i ve and i nvas i ve pr i vat e r ecor di ng— a “Peepi ng T om ” l aw f

orthi s ever - m or e di gi t al w or l d. Y etunderthe maj or i ty’ s i nt erpr et at i on
o f th e sta tu te, v irtu a lly a n y u se o f a re c o rd in g d e v ice c o u ld p ro v e to b e a fe lo n y . U n d e r th e ir
r eas oni ng, m any per s ons w ho ut i l i ze r ecor di ng devi ces i n otherw i s e l egal empl oym entm i ght be cr i m i nal s . B ew ar e then t o the t el evi s i on r eport erw ho cover s a hi gh school f ootbal l m at ch and conduc t s i nt ervi ew s i n the t eam’ s l ockerr oom . B ew ar e al s o t o the pr i vat e i nves t i gat or
w ho i s l aw f

ul l y pai d by a s pous e t o r ecor d the ni ght
- t i m e ac t i vi t i es of a s tr ayi ng m at e. U nder

### 20

the maj or i ty’ s vi ew of

the l aw , any “l ew d i nt ent ” m i ghtbe es t abl i s hed i f the ca m er a happe ns t o zoom i n on a s ens i t i ve ar ea of the per s on’ s body. ¶42
. T he m aj ori ty’s el i m i nati on of tw o cri t i cal el em ents fr om the cri m e of vi deo vo yeu ri sm dis t ort s l egis l at i ve int ent and v i olat es cen turi es- old, fund am ental p ri ncipl es of du e process. B eca us e the St at e has f

ai l ed t o pr ovi de s uf

f i ci entevi dence of

al l the el ement s of

the cr i m e, I w oul d r ever s e G i l m er ’ s convi ct i on. GRAVE S AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.

DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶43. T o be cl ear , G i l m er di d not vi deo s om eone w ho bel i eved s he w as enj oyi ng a mom ent of pr i vacy w her e s he coul d n ot be s een orf i l m ed. G i l m eri s char ged w i th vi deo t api ng C lay to n a t a tim e w h e n sh e w a s fu lly clo th e d a n d sittin g in a p lac e w h e re sh e fre e ly a d m its thatpeopl e out s i de i n the parki ng l otc oul d s ee her
. W hi l e G i l m er ’ s c onductmay be bi zarr e, dis t ast eful , and perhap s even c i vil l y act i on able, i tdo es not const i tute voye uri sm . V oy euri sm i s nott aki ng p i ctures of a per s on w ho i s aw ar e thatthe publ i c may be l ooki ng. W hatan
a b s u r d i ty f

o rth e l a w t o a l l o w o n e t o s t a n d a n d l o o k wi th i mp u n i ty a ta p e r s o n who k n o ws they ar e bei ng l ooked at , butthe mom enta pi ctur e i s t aken ora vi deo i s m ade, the l ooker b e c o m e s a v o y e u r, th a t is to sa y , a c rim in a l. ¶4 4. D ebr a C l ayt on fr eel y adm i t s s he w a s a w a r e tha ta ny on e i n the pa r ki ng l otof her ap artm en t com p lex c o u ld ea sil y see h er w h il e sh e w as sittin g in fro n t of h er b alco n y d o o r. T hus , f r om the St at e’ s ( and the m aj or i ty’ s ) poi ntof vi ew , even though C l ayt on knew that

### 21

G i l m er( and other s ) mi ghtbe l ooki ng a ther , they coul d nott ake a pi ctur e of w hatthey s aw
w ith o u t violati n g M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 9 7 -29 -63 (th e “ V o y eu r S tatu te”). ¶45. A ccor di ng t o i t s very l anguage , the V oyeur St atut e i s vi ol at ed onl y w hen the per s on phot ogr aphed orvi deot aped i s i n a pl ace w her e thatpe r s on ha s a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacy. B y C l ayt on’ s ow n a dm i s s i on, ther e w as no e xpect at i on of pr i vacy w her e the vi deo
w as m ade, and, theref

ore, the V oy eur Statute w as not viol at ed. F or this reas on , and fortho se sta ted b y Ju stic e D iaz in h is d iss e n t, I res p e c tfu lly d iss e n t. DI AZ , P . J . , AND GRAV ES , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.