from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of
capturing an image of the private area of another person.
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kerry Louise
Law Office of Travis Akin and Travis D. Akin, Las Vegas;
Justice Law Center and Bret O. Whipple, Las Vegas, for
Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City; Steven B.
Wolfson, District Attorney, Krista D. Barrie, Chief Deputy
District Attorney, and Elissa Luzaich, Deputy District
Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
DOUGLAS, C.J., GIBBONS and PICKERING, JJ.
200.604 prohibits a person from knowingly and intentionally
capturing an image of another person's private area
without her consent, under circumstances in which she has a
reasonable expectation of privacy. The question presented is
whether the statute prohibits a person from copying, without
permission, a consensually recorded video depicting sexual
acts. We hold that such copying does not violate NRS 200.604
and therefore reverse.
was arrested and charged with several crimes involving two
alleged victims. After a five-day trial, the jury acquitted
Coleman of all charges except one: capturing an image of the
private area of another person in violation of NRS 200.604.
The facts related to that charge involve one victim, L.M.
a Las Vegas police officer, responded to a scene where
another officer had detained L.M. and a friend of hers. L.M.
admitted she had outstanding warrants, and after finding
drugs in L.M.'s friend's purse, the officers arrested
both women. At some point during the arrest, L.M. gave
Coleman permission to go through her cell phone, where he
found sexual videos of her and her boyfriend. Coleman copied
these videos onto his cell phone by recording the video while
it was playing on L.M.'s cell phone. Sometime later,
police had occasion to search Coleman's cell phone and
they found the videos of L.M. and her boyfriend. Coleman was
charged and convicted of violating NRS 200.604 and now
argues that the State did not put forth sufficient evidence
to convict him under NRS 200.604 because the statute
prohibits voyeurism and Coleman did not take a video of
L.M.'s physical body directly but merely copied an
existing video. The State responds that the statute prohibits
Coleman's conduct because he captured an image of
L.M.'s private area from a video on her cell phone, in
which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
whether the State provided sufficient evidence to convict
Coleman under NRS 200.604 requires us to interpret the
statute to understand what conduct it prohibits. Issues of
statutory interpretation are questions of law reviewed de
novo. State v. Catanio, 120 Nev. 1030, 1033, 102
P.3d 588, 590 (2004). If a statute is unambiguous, this court
does not look beyond its plain language in interpreting it.
State v. Lucero, 127 Nev. 92, 95, 249 P.3d 1226,
1228 (2011). When a statute is ambiguous, meaning-it is
susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations, the
court may look to extrinsic aids such as legislative history,
extra-jurisdictional authority, and principles of
interpretation, including the rule of lenity, to disambiguate
its text. Id.
200.604(1) provides that "a person shall not knowingly
and intentionally capture an image of the private area of
another person: (a) [w]ithout the consent of the other
person; and (b) [u]nder circumstances in which the other
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."
"'Capture, ' with respect to an image means, to
videotape, photograph, film, record by any means for
broadcast." NRS 200.604(8)(b). Under NRS 200.604(2), it
is also illegal to "distribute, disclose, display,