Opinion ID: 2357569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Define the Term Lewd

Text: As his second claim of error, appellant, having not raised this issue before the trial court, now argues that the trial judge erred in failing to define the term lewd in the Sexual Performance Using a Minor statute. We conclude that the trial judge did note err in instructing the jury on this offense. An individual is guilty of Sexual Performance Using a Minor if knowing the character and content thereof, he or she employs, authorizes, or induces a person under 16 years of age to engage in a sexual performance. D.C.Code § 22-3102(1) (2001). Sexual performance is defined as any performance or part thereof which includes sexual conduct by a person under 16 years of age. Id. § 22-3101(6). A performance is defined to include photographs. Id. § 22-3101(3). Sexual conduct is defined to include a lewd exhibition of the genitals. Id. § 22-3101(5)(E). The instruction given by the trial court gave substantial guidance to the jury concerning the meaning of the term lewd, a word that in any event is known in common parlance. The judge began by explaining, In this case sexual conduct means a lewd exhibition of the genitals, and further instructed the jury that genitals are defined as reproductive organs, in this case, the vagina. Next, he explained that the lewd exhibition of the genitals means that the minor's genital or pubic area must be visibly displayed and mere nudity is not enough. Further, the trial judge noted that the exhibition must have an unnatural or unusual focus on the minor's genitalia regardless of the minor's intention to engage in sexual activity or whether the viewer is sexually aroused. Thus, we conclude that the trial judge, while not specifically telling the jury that he was defining lewd for them, did a commendable job of explaining the meaning of the statute and giving them the guidance necessary to reach an informed verdict. We reject the idea that in order to define lewd adequately, the judge must use terms such as `lewd' means or the definition of `lewd' is. . . .  [10] (Citing to the legislative history of the District of Columbia Protection of Minors Act of 1982, D.C.Code §§ 22-3101-3104 (2001)), and to Black's Law Dictionary 927 (8th ed.2004), appellant argues that lewd is a synonym for obscene, and therefore the trial court should have instructed the jury that they could find the photographs lewd only if the government showed that the average person, applying contemporary community standards to a work taken as a whole, could conclude that the [photographs appealed] to the prurient interest in sex, portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. D.C. Council, Capsule Legislative History, Bill 4-305, at 3-4 (1981) (citing Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973)). In arguing for this definition of lewd, however, appellant ignores the entire purpose of the law, which was to provide greater protection to children by following the example of many states that had enacted statutes similar to the promised measure, which do not require proof that material is obscene, but simply prohibit using or permitting children to be filmed, photographed, or displayed while engaged in specifically defined sexual conduct. Id. at 4 (emphasis added). The Committee of the Judiciary noted before passage of the Act that the Supreme Court had recently held such measures constitutional. Id. at 4-5 (citing New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)); see also Kongs, supra, note 10, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d at 331. We decline appellant's invitation to adopt a definition of lewd at odds with the expressed intent of the legislature and conclude that there was no error in the instruction.