Defendant is alleged to have made copies of his edited version of the original tape. The second tape, identified as people's exhibit 2, depicts two sisters ages eight and ten watching themselves on a television monitor. One child lifts her shirt. The child then exposes her vaginal area and laughs. The child's full body is observed on the tape.
Nothing suggests the child acted at defendant's request.
No editing of this scene occurred except that it was replayed twice more on the tape at regular speed. We review the district court's decision to bind over a defendant, as well as the trial court's decision on a motion to quash an information, to determine whether the district court abused its discretion. However, the decision whether alleged conduct falls within the statutory scope of a criminal law involves a question of law that we review de novo. Similarly, statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. The prosecution argues that defendant's editing of the tape constituted a violation of the statute because by so editing, defendant turned apparently innocent child play into erotic nudity.