New Mexico v. Myers
Annotate this CaseDefendant Ronald Myers was convicted on seven counts under the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act (the Act) for covertly videotaping two female minors while they used the bathroom in a government office in 2004. Defendant was convicted under that portion of the Act which prohibits the intentional "manufactur[ing of] any obscene visual or print medium depicting any prohibited sexual act or simulation of such an act if one or more of the participants in that act is a child under eighteen years of age.'" Defendant appealed the convictions claiming that the images did not depict a "prohibited sexual act" and were not "obscene." The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's convictions. Of the five prohibited sexual acts defined in the Act, the one at issue was "a lewd and sexually explicit exhibition with a focus on the genitals or pubic area of any person for the purpose of sexual stimulation.'" The Court of Appeals concluded that the videotaped images did not depict a "prohibited sexual act" because the images were neither "lewd and sexually explicit" nor manufactured "for the purpose of sexual stimulation" within the meaning of the Act. The State petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court reversed. The Court remanded Defendant's appeal for the Court of Appeals to consider two remaining issues raised by the parties in the initial appeal that the appellate court had not yet addressed: (1) "whether the Act is void for vagueness as applied to Defendant's conduct," and (2) "whether the trial court properly entered a stay of execution that relieved Defendant of the obligation to register as a sex offender [under SORNA] pending the outcome of this appeal." Upon second review of Defendant's case, the Supreme Court once again affirmed the result of the trial below, and held that trial judges have neither the power nor the discretion to stay the application of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) pending the outcome of an appeal. In affirming Defendant's convictions, the Court reversed a second opinion of the Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals misapprehended both the Court's opinion and the law relative to retroactive application of judicial decisions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings to enforce Defendant's convictions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.