Burns v. Carroll

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “[t]he child molestation statute does not require proof of the defendant’s actual arousal” and that the intent to arouse may be inferred
• holding that evidence that the defendant exposed his penis to a child and had her touch it supported the inference that the defendant had acted with the intent to arouse or satisfy himself sexually
• the child molestation statute “requires only that the defendant have acted with the intent to arouse his sexual desires”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).