Annoying-a-minor law struck down

Friday, Dec. 20, 2002 | 11:05 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada law that says a "person who annoys or molests a minor is guilty of a misdemeanor" is unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The court said the language in the law "does not specify what type of annoying behavior is prohibited nor does it define the term 'molest.' "

The decision, written by Justice Deborah Agosti, said there is no indication in the law whether the person must intend to annoy the minor, or if unintentional bothersome conduct is sufficient to file a criminal charge.

The decision upholds the ruling of District Judge Jeffrey Sobel in the case of James E. Charles, who was charged in September 2000 in Las Vegas with one count of annoying a minor. He was accused of annoying a girl by following her from her home to another house and thereafter asking for her 10 to 15 times.

Sobel ruled the statute was invalid because "people of common intelligence must necessarily guess" as to the conduct it proscribes.

Agosti wrote that both the U.S. and the Nevada Constitutions guarantee that every citizen shall receive fair notice of conduct that is forbidden.

This law, Agosti said, requires citizens to guess what conduct that bothers, disturbs, irritates or harasses a minor rises to the level of criminal conduct.

She said the ambiguity also encourages arbitrary enforcement of the law.

"Because the statute fails to adequately set forth the conduct proscribed, it provides those charged with enforcement of its provisions unfettered and unguided discretion to decide what annoying activity falls within its parameters," Agosti wrote.

Justice Miriam Shearing, with Justices Bill Maupin and Nancy Becker agreeing, said the "annoying" part of the law was unconstitutional.

Shearing said, "If annoying a minor alone were unlawful, virtually every parent would at one time or another be a lawbreaker."

But Shearing said the word "molest" in the law is not vague. She said molestation requires "hostile intent or injurious effect." She said that part of the law should be upheld.