While some of our cases focus on ordinary meaning, they should not be read to suggest that ordinary meaning is the exclusive tool available to us in our effort to effectuate legislative intent when a statutory term is not expressly defined or does not appear to be a technical term of art. E.g.,Barneck v. Utah Dep't of Transp., 2015 UT 50, ¶ 28, 353 P.3d 140 ; State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 13, 322 P.3d 719 ; Hi–Country Prop. Rights Grp. v. Emmer, 2013 UT 33, ¶ 18, 304 P.3d 851 ; State v. Canton, 2013 UT 44, ¶¶ 10–27 & n. 6, 308 P.3d 517 ; Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 2011 UT 10, ¶ 9, 248 P.3d 465.B. The Allowable Unit of Prosecution for Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm is Each Discrete Shot
Thomas did not object to this definition. Instead, drawing from State v. Bagnes , 2014 UT 4, 322 P.3d 719, Thomas requested two additional, general definitional instructions for lewdness: (1) "Lewdness involves conduct of a sexual, lascivious nature and an irregular indulgence of lust" (the Sexual Nature Instruction) and (2) "Conduct may be strange and socially inappropriate without the conduct being lewd" (the Strange Conduct Instruction). Id. ¶¶ 1, 13–29 (defining lewdness as involving conduct "marked by lasciviousness" and an "irregular indulgence of lust," and explaining that conduct may be "strange" and "socially inappropriate" without being lewd).
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for clear error, reversing "only when it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged." State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719 (quotation simplified). "However, before we can uphold [an adjudication,] it must be supported by a quantum of evidence concerning each element of the crime as charged from which the factfinder may base its conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
If the legislature has not defined a term, we must look to other sources "to derive its meaning—to either the ordinary meaning of the word, or to its technical sense as a legal term of art." State v. Bagnes , 2014 UT 4, ¶ 13, 322 P.3d 719 (citations omitted). ¶16 A term of art is a "specialized legal term[ ] that carr[ies] an extra-ordinary meaning."
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for clear error, reversing "only when it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged." State v. Bagnes , 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10, 322 P.3d 719 (quotation simplified). "However, before we can uphold [an adjudication,] it must be supported by a quantum of evidence concerning each element of the crime as charged from which the factfinder may base its conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
However, these arguments seem to apply to the catchall variant of lewdness, which, while included in the jury instructions on the elements of lewdness, was not the focus of the case. See generally State v. Bagnes , 2014 UT 4, ¶ 19, 322 P.3d 719 (addressing the limiting principle applicable to the catchall element of our lewdness statute). The State expressly told the jury in closing that it was "just focusing" on whether Powell had "exposed his genitals."
GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Utah State Univ. Research Found. , 2018 UT 50, ¶ 15, 428 P.3d 1064 (quoting State v. Bagnes , 2014 UT 4, ¶ 13, 322 P.3d 719 ).Id. ¶¶ 20–21.
Dictionaries, which serve as "an historical record ... of the meanings which words in fact have borne," provide a useful starting point for the assessment of ordinary meaning. State v. Bagnes , 2014 UT 4, ¶ 14, 322 P.3d 719 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). And while "the dictionary alone is often inadequate to the task of interpretation because different definitions may support different interpretations," GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Utah State Univ.
Dictionaries, which serve as "an historical record . . . of the meanings which words in fact have borne," provide a useful starting point for the assessment of ordinary meaning. State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 14, 322 P.3d 719 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). And while "the dictionary alone is often inadequate to the task of interpretation because different definitions may support different interpretations," GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Utah State Univ. Rsch. Found., 2018 UT 50, ¶ 21, 428 P.3d 1064 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), the term "Panel" presents no such ambiguity.
And this subsection is aimed at visual depictions of child nudity that facially "excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer." See State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 41, 322 P.3d 719 (citation omitted) (interpreting subsection (10)(e) to have this focus). ¶35 The subsection (10)(e) category thus encompasses the prohibition that Jordan has in mind.