State v. Harstad

How courts have described this case

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

• a defendant’s sexual purpose was inferred from contextual facts such as body positioning, state of undress, statements, and conduct
• A jury may determine that “parts of the body in close proximity to the primary erogenous areas” are intimate parts and that the defendant placing his hand on the victim’s upper inner thigh area constituted touching an “intimate part.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).