Court Opinion

ID: 9755301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:34:18.021914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:06.030833
License: Public Domain

Saitta, C.J.,
with whom Cherry, L, agrees,
concurring:
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that NRS 200.710 is not unconstitutionally vague, but I write separately to express my concern with the imprecise draftsmanship at the core of the statute. As *631evinced by the considerable effort devoted by the majority to pinning down just what the term “minor” in NRS 200.710 means, the statute is far from a model of clarity. If the members of the majority — experienced jurists armed with law dictionaries and treatises — require so much energy to discern what the term means, then one must wonder how well “a person of ordinary intelligence” would fare. Ultimately, such a person would likely throw up his or her hands and assume that the term “minor,” as used in NRS 200.710, means someone under the age of 18. Given this reality, I understand why the district court concluded that the statute’s imprecision rises to the level of unconstitutional vagueness. The Legislature should have prevented this very situation by fashioning a more comprehensive statute in the first place.