Opinion ID: 2514079
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 76-5a-3(1) AS APPLIED TO PETERSON

Text: ¶ 16 Before the trial court below, Peterson entered a conditional plea of no contest to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. That plea related to his possession of one photograph depicting a young, nude girl who appears to be about eight or nine years old. The girl's weight is on one leg, thereby emphasizing her genitalia. She is standing on a rope web of the type commonly found on playgrounds and is looking into the camera. A man, who appears to be nude as well, is standing in the distant background. On appeal, Peterson contends section 76-5a-3(1) cannot be constitutionally applied to him for possession of the photograph described above. ¶ 17 As it pertains to the issue before us, section 76-5a-3(1) makes a person guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor if that person knowingly . . . possesses . . . material . . . depicting a nude or partially nude minor for the purpose of causing sexual arousal of any person. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5a-3(1)(a). Peterson does not challenge that he knowingly possessed a depiction of a nude minor; rather, he argues the photograph is not designed for the purpose of sexual arousal of any person. Id. We disagree. ¶ 18 We have never addressed the issue of what a court should consider when determining whether material depicting a nude minor is designed for the purpose of sexual arousal of any person. Id. However, federal courts have addressed a similar issue. Federal law prohibits the transportation across state lines of depictions of lascivious exhibition[s] of the genitals or pubic area of minors. In determining what constitutes a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area, many federal courts have adopted the so-called Dost factors. These six factors are as follows: [first,] whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area; [second,] whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity; [third,] whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of a child; [fourth,] whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; [fifth,] whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity; [and, sixth,] whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. United States v. Wolf, 890 F.2d 241, 244 (10th Cir.1989) (footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986)). The Dost factors should not be viewed as establishing a rigid test, however: [T]he Dost factors are generally relevant and provide some guidance in evaluating whether the display in question is [designed for the purposes of sexual arousal of any person.] We emphasize, however, that these factors are neither comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation. Although Dost provides some specific, workable criteria, there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determining whether a photograph [is designed for the purposes of sexual arousal of any person.] The inquiry will always be case-specific. United States v. Amirault, 173 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir.1999) (emphasis added). ¶ 19 Importantly, for our purposes, the sixth factor, i.e., whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer, rather than being a separate substantive inquiry about the photographs, is useful as another way of inquiring into whether any of the other five Dost factors are met. Id. 173 F.3d at 35 (quoting United States v. Villard, 885 F.2d 117, 125 (3d Cir.1989)). In other words, to determine whether a visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer, a court should consider the other five Dost factors. ¶ 20 We believe the determination of whether material depicting a nude minor is designed for the purpose of sexual arousal of any person, Utah Code Ann. § 76-5a-3(1)(a), is substantially similar to the determination of whether a visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. Further, we believe the federal courts' application of the sixth Dost factor is helpful for Utah courts in determining whether material depicting a nude minor is designed for the purpose of sexual arousal of any person. Id. This is not to say, however, that the Utah statute directly parallels the federal statute. For instance, federal courts consider whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area because the federal statute proscribes certain depictions of exhibition[s] of the genitals or pubic area of minors. However, section 76-5a-3(1) not only proscribes exhibition[s] of the genitals or pubic area, but also proscribes other depictions of nude or partially nude minor[s]. Accordingly, while the Dost factors are helpful, not all of them are applicable to a determination that material depicts a nude or partially nude minor for the purpose of sexual arousal of any person. [5] ¶ 21 Bearing this in mind, we now turn to the photograph at issue. We find several of the Dost factors are met. First, the child is completely nude. This satisfies the statutory requirement that the photograph depict a nude or partially nude minor. Second, the child is standing on a rope web of the type commonly found on playgrounds. While a playground setting is not usually associated with sexual activity, for a child to appear in such a setting completely nude is clearly inappropriate. Indeed, the very fact that a child is depicted nude in a location commonly associated with children's daily, public activities, is indicative of the photograph's design to sexually arouse pedophiles. Third, the girl's weight is on one leg, thereby emphasizing her genitalia. Lastly, the child, who is looking into the camera, is obviously posed for the photograph. The pose emphasizes the child's nudity and genitals, thereby suggesting a purpose to sexually arouse. In addition to the listed Dost factors, the photograph also depicts a man, apparently nude, standing in the background. We believe the presence of a nude adult tends to indicate the photograph was designed for the purpose of sexual arousal of any person. ¶ 22 In summary, the photograph depicts a posed, nude child, in an inappropriate setting, together with a nude adult and emphasizes the child's genitalia. We hold the photograph depicts a nude minor for the purpose of sexual arousal of any person. Thus, section 76-5a-3(1)(a) is not unconstitutional as applied to Peterson.