Court Opinion

ID: 9723872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:36:50.882565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:52.929790
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of defendant’s conviction because I conclude *457that the trier of fact could reasonably have concluded that defendant performed a “sex act” on an eight-year-old child. I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s criteria for determining whether “sexual contact,” an essential element of a “sex act” under Iowa Code section 702.17, has occurred.
I believe that it is axiomatic that any time two persons are moving about in close proximity to one another innocent contact may occur between sexual parts. The majority recognizes this and attempts to distinguish prohibited sexual contact from innocent contact. The majority includes, as a criterion for determining sexual contact, “the purposefulness of the contact.” At the same time, it disavows any requirement that there be an intent to act based on sexual gratification of either the perpetrator or the victim. The circumstances that the majority would consider in determining whether sexual contact has occurred would also be relevant to show an intent to act based on sexual gratification. However, by not recognizing sexual gratification as an element of sexual contact, the majority prohibits a defendant from attempting to negate the charge by urging lack of such intent. I believe that this is unrealistic and unfair.