In State v. Jordan, 665 P.2d 1280, 1284 (Utah 1983), defendants were convicted under a portion of the statute prohibiting inducing a minor to pose in the nude for the purpose of sexual arousal. Jordan, 665 P.2d at 1283. The court held that defendants could not challenge the statute's constitutionality based on the alleged overbreadth of another portion of the same subsection that prohibited inducing minors to pose in the nude for profit. Id. at 1284. The court held that "the defendants cannot rely upon the overbreadth exception to test that proscribed conduct as it affects others." Id. Because one valid portion of the statute proscribed defendants' conduct, the court did not address the constitutionality of another portion of the statute, and sustained defendants' convictions. Id. In State v. Jordan, the defendants challenged, as unconstitutionally vague, a statute criminalizing depictions of minors engaged in "simulated" sexual conduct. While noting that "simulated" was not legally defined, the court found that it was "recognizable in simple lay terms as 'looking or acting like,'" and, therefore, "the disputed language was . . . sufficiently clear to convey 'warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. The Constitution requires no more.'" Id. at 1285.