Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): say this “touching” rose to the level of “deviate sexual intercourse.” However, we do find there was sufficient evidence adduced at the plea hearing that Relator committed child molestation in the first degree in violation of Section 566.067, RSMo 1994, in that he subjected two victims who were less than twelve years of age to “sexual contact” by touching their vaginas with his hand only. See State v. Pnce, 940 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Mo.App. E.D.1997) (placing hand on victim’s genitals constituted sexual abuse as opposed to deviate sexual' intercourse under amended statutes); State v. Palmer, 976 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Mo.App. E.D.1998) (touching victim’s genitals constituted sexual abuse, not statutory sodomy under amended statutes); State ex rel. Nixon v. Sprick, 59 S.W.3d 515, 519 (Mo. banc 2001) (<HOLDING>). Relator next argues that becadse his offenses 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that intentional acts exclusion applies to intentional act of child molestation (B) holding that touching anus and touching genitals are separate offenses under penal code section 2211a1 (C) holding that an abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously covered claim of sexual touching even though terms abuse and molestation were not defined (D) holding that simply exposing ones sexual organs to a child can be sufficient proof of child molestation (E) holding direct touching of victims vagina constituted child molestation under amended statutes
Output (English): holding that an abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously covered claim of sexual touching even though terms abuse and molestation were not defined