Skip to main content

State v. Harstad

Citations

  • 218 P.3d 624

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).

Judges: Agid

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.