The Court of Appeal found the probation condition that prohibited appellant from possessing sexually explicit images was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court, therefore, modified the condition to add a knowledge requirement and apply to “materials that . . . have the primary purpose of causing sexual arousal.” The Court also remanded the case to the juvenile court with directions to specify the maximum term of confinement for appellant and credit against that term of confinement the time appellant spent in custody before the dispositional hearing.
^