involving a minor garbus of whether the act is abusive so long as the person's motivation is sexual gratification or desire in fact it is so broad that the north carolina  violated by conduct that a minor is not even aware of it and in my brief i did give an example state versus macleish square a christian headmaster had a video camera set up in his office and he asked a fifteen year old student to go into the office and try on some basketball uniforms unbeknownst to the fifteen year old christian headmaster secretly videotaped her thinking to these basketball her she was completely unaware of it what well i think that goes to the other circuits that have decided this issue and that's the eleventh circuit and spencer the fifth circuit and in that case they state we don't require touching because we're concerned in general with minors we do not wish for minors to be either physically injured or psychologically injured and if a minor is not even aware of something going on i don't understand how there could i think that when a child is touched that could involve no touching the psychological damage it can be done locally be done in photographs that can be created over the internet it can't come in a lot of ways but if it's just psychological damage there's no need for more right i guess i would not go that far all i can say is that wor children however they found three samples that would constitute annoy or molest but would not constitute the crime of sexual abuse of a minor under california let's talk about north carolina it's the north carolina statu something's going on and in that example a minor could be completely unaware and the act wasn't really necessarily directed towards her that was a hypothetical posed by the sensor that's correct my question goes to is there any north n that the could be some kind of harm inflicted if not physical then psychological there i do agree that there could be some psychological harm inflicted however i would point out in the every case the victim indicated that she quit calling the crotty instructor because she was in her words grossed out by the conversations which didn't sound like she felt that she had been psychologically damaged she  conversations disturbing in that case but we're talking categorical though so the question is whether or not the individual was actually harmed the question seems in part whether or not that with the conduct of the court directly found the defendants in north carolina conviction tatic work reconstituted sexual abuse of a minor as the court has clearly aware in this case the issue is whether the conduct prohibited by the statute constitutes an abuse under ninth circuit  molest employers go on in both substance and degree first of all it was a misdemeanor statute in north carolina statutes a felony statute that california statute prohibited annoying disturbing and irritating conduct there was no age requirement here we have a moral improper indecent liberty used if the purpose of the statute is to prevent sexual overtures sexual acts against children and here there is an age requirement that they don't must be over the age of act and psychological or physical harm to children the kind of the types of things that would be more on par with the north carolina statute is the first statute you mention about the child pornography people have been convicted under the north carolina statute and non touching cases which under the ordinary contemporary meaning would be abuse in such situations as taking native pictures of children it's actually suggested positions that you're bathing in front of children exposing oneself and placing hands on genitals while in close proximity to children masturbating behind glass contemporary meaning of the the gratification of sexual desires regardless the form i have a hard matter question why doesn't the government or why didn't the government in this case put in the documents to his family when he was actually convicted and since they were fourteen year old private student and culture repeatedly over several weeks and masturbated on the phone and had these discussions where both he and she was aware that he was masturbating he encouraged her to masturbate it goes beyond lafontaine the california case court discussed in player skyline so it's a little bit of a different situation as with the degree maybe it's a felony statute in the compass is more serious conduct defense counsel also mentioned awareness as judge fisher noted there are many examples in criminal law that ascribe criminal culpability where the victim was unaware of the abuse and i think the victim's awareness really had a lot to do with the definition of abuse  the probation officer included the language in the indictment in the pre sentence report i objected to that because my client did not plead to that charge at all he pleaded to an amended complaint which was sexual indecent improper immoral liberties with a child and they were absolutely no documentation there were no documents were presented for the court to review in addition your honor i would like to point out that what the prosecutor said the use of any children for the nor the touching of or by a minor you read that statement to indicate that you can find sexual abuse categorically without regard to w