Opinion ID: 2209739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Patently Offensive Sexual Conduct

Text: Similarly, we find ample evidence in the record to support the jury's determination that the videotape depicted, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. As noted above, § 28-807(15) specifically defines masturbation and prolonged contact with genitals as being included in sexual conduct. Harrold's clearly depicted masturbation and prolonged contact with his genitals, in the absence of any context whatsoever, falls within the range of sexual conduct that creates a jury issue as to whether the conduct is patently offensive to an `average person, applying contemporary community standards.' See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607. The jury was properly instructed that Harrold's depiction of sexual conduct must go substantially beyond customary limits of candor for it to be considered patently offensive. Suffice it to say, without repeating the visual details, that the evidence presented supports the jury's determination that the videotape depicted proscribed sexual conduct in a manner that was patently offensive when measured against the contemporary community standards.