although no minors observe their actions. For this reason, I believe we should be guided by the logic of our court in Low v. State, 580 N.E.2d 737 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), an appeal from a conviction for an “obscene performance.” In Low, a police officer called a woman to his hotel room where she showed him her breasts and fondled herself. We held that unless the statute was narrowly construed, conduct similar to the acts in that case occurring between consenting married adults would fall within the purview of the statute. Id. at 740. “We may give narrow construction to statutes to save them from nullification if the construction does not establish a new or different policy basis and is consistent with legislative intent.” Id.; see also Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464, 469 (Ind.2007) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, penal statutes, such as the statute
holding that the criminal confinement statute as to its inclusion of the words fraud and enticement is void for vagueness because the common meaning of those words as ascertained from an english language dictionary would lead to arrests and convictions for trivial acts or encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement holding legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used holding that a statute is not vague where the words themselves  possess a common and generally accepted meaning recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims