Opinion ID: 2590362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Gross lewdness

Text: In addition, we conclude that the phrase gross lewdness in NRS 201.210 is neither vague nor indefinite; rather, we are persuaded that it has a well-defined, well-understood, and generally accepted meaning, sufficient to inform an offender of the act that is prohibited. The term gross, as used in NRS 201.210, modifies the term lewdness. This placement of the term gross narrows the meaning and breadth of lewdness by specifying the degree of lewdness required by the statute. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines gross to mean immediately obvious... glaringly noticeable usu[ally] because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness. 551 (11th ed.2003). Therefore, for purposes of NRS 201.210, the statute prohibits lewd acts that are glaringly noticeable or obviously objectionable. See id. In light of the plain meaning of the word gross and its placement with respect to the term lewdness, we conclude that, as used in NRS 201.210, gross sufficiently informs people what degree of lewdness is prohibited. [4] With respect to the term lewdness, this court has previously considered a vagueness challenge to that word in Summers v. Sheriff, 90 Nev. 180, 521 P.2d 1228 (1974). In Summers, this court established that the word lewd, under NRS 201.230, defining lewdness with a minor, was not exceedingly vague to render the statute void, stating, [w]hile `lewd' is not specifically defined in our statutes, the word `conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.' Id. at 182, 521 P.2d at 1228 (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 491, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957)). Even though the analysis in Summers concerned lewdness with a minor under NRS 201.230, and that analysis was brief, we are convinced that dictionary definitions and other jurisdictions' reasoning regarding similar lewdness statutes support the same conclusion here. Modern authorities define lewd as pertaining to sexual conduct that is [o]bscene or indecent; tending to moral impurity or wantonness, Black's Law Dictionary 927 (8th ed.2004), evil, wicked or sexually unchaste or licentious, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 715 (11th ed.2003), and [p]reoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1035 (3d ed.1996). [5] Other jurisdictions considering vagueness challenges to statutes worded similar to NRS 201.210 have upheld those statutes reasoning that the terms lewd or lewdness have generally accepted meanings, State v. Cook, 139 Ariz. 406, 678 P.2d 987, 989 (App. 1984), and the concept of lewdness is sufficiently a matter of common knowledge that the average citizen can determine what conduct is proscribed. Profit v. City of Tulsa, 574 P.2d 1053, 1056 (Okla.Crim.App.1978). Therefore, we determine that lewdness has a sufficiently definite meaning such that the average person would know what kinds of acts are prohibited by NRS 201.210. [6] Because the terms open, gross, and lewdness all have well-defined and well-understood meanings, we hold that NRS 201.210 is not unconstitutionally vague.