Klausen v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• jury could infer from defendant’s actions in the child’s presence that he acted with the intent to arouse or satisfy his own sexual desires
• whether the defendant’s intention was innocent “or to arouse his own sexual desires . . . was peculiarly a question of fact for determination by the jury” (citation and punctuation omitted)
• evidence supported child molestation conviction because the defendant masturbated while a child was on a sofa with him, even though the child “may not have been fully aware of what was occurring”
• child molestation conviction upheld where, although defendant contended victim was unaware of his presence while he masturbated as she watched television, jury could infer that victim was aware of defendant’s actions given his proximity
• child molestation conviction upheld where, although defendant contended victim was unaware of his presence while he masturbated as she watched television, jury could infer that victim was aware of defendant’s actions given his proximity
• jury may assess credibility of witnesses and weigh it against other evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).