Hirsch v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the State need not prove that the defendant knew or should have known that a minor was under the age of 16 to obtain a conviction for lewdness where the statute's plain language did not include the element of knowledge
• recognizing \the term `wil[l]fully' has been defined to refer to general intent\ in the context of statutes aimed at the protection of infants (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins v. State, 110 Nev. 865, 870, 877 P.2d 1063, 1066 (1994))
• recognizing \the term `wil[l]fully' has been defined to refer to general intent\ in the context of statutes aimed at the COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 10 101 It/471i protection of infants (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins v. State, 110 Nev. 865, 870, 877 P.2d 1063, 1066 (1994))
• recognizing “the term ‘wil[l]fully has been defined to refer to general intent” in the context of statutes aimed at the 10 Court oF APPEALS OF NEVADA (0) 19478 << protection of infants (alteration in original) (quoting Jenkins v. State, 110 Nev. 865, 870, 877 P.2d 1063, 1066 (1994))
• lewdness with a child, which requires a finding that the criminal act was undertaken “with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passion or sexual desires” is a specific intent crime
• lewdness with a child, which requires a finding that the criminal act was undertaken “with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passion or sexual desires” is a specific intent crime

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).