Cited by

Although the statute does not define “sexual or aggressive intent” we have stated that sexual intent exists if a person acts “based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

(“In common usage, an act is committed with sexual intent when the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification.”).

Applying the common and approved usage of the term “sexual intent,” we have determined that “an act is committed with sexual intent when the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

5 The purpose of requiring the state to prove sexual intent is “to avoid criminalizing contact that is accidental or that serves an innocuous, non-sexual purpose.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

Absent any allegation of aggressive intent, the state must show “sexual intent.” Because “sexual intent” is not defined by statute, we construe it “according to [its] common and approved usage.” , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

“Sexual intent,” as interpreted by caselaw, means that “the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification” and “must be established to avoid criminalizing contact that is accidental or that serves an innocuous, non-sexual purpose.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

In this context, “an act is committed with sexual intent when the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

9 (defining “know” as requiring the actor to believe the specified fact exists) (2018); - 93 (Minn. 2010) (interpreting a statute prohibiting nonconsensual “sexual contact” to “define a ‘specific intent’ crime”); (holding that “knowing or having reason to know” in statute demonstrated legislative intent to define fifth-degree criminal sexua

-93 (Minn. App. 2010) (stating that second-degree criminal sexual conduct is a specific-intent crime requiring evidence that “the defendant intend the specific result of touching intimate body parts”) , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

An act “is committed with sexual intent when the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

Third, Penkert argues Minn. Stat. § 609.3451 requires “sexual or aggressive intent” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

(“ [a] subjective sexual intent typically must be inferred from the nature of the conduct itself”), review denied (Minn. Dec.

review denied (Minn. Dec.

“[A]n act is committed with sexual intent when the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gra tification.” review denied (Minn. Dec.

As Beckstrand notes, under Minnesota law , “[s]exual intent must be established to avoid criminalizing contact that is accidental or that serves an innocuous, non-sexual purpose.” review denied (Minn. Dec.

This court has construed second-degree criminal sexual conduct to be a “specific- intent crime,” requiring the state to prove the defendant “intend[ed] the specific result of touching intimate body parts”; the statute does not criminalize “merely reckless or negligent” conduct, - 93 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.

But , in the context of sexual assa ult, “a showing of sexual intent does not require direct evidence of the defendant’s desires or gratification because a subjective sexual intent typically must be inferred from the nature of the conduct itself.” review denied (Minn. Dec.

We discussed “sexual intent” review denied (Minn. Dec.

review denied (Minn. Dec.

-93 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.

We have defined sexual intent as occurring “when the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification.” review denied (Minn. Dec.

(stating that sexual intent is an act “based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification” and “typically must be inferred from the nature of the conduct itself”), review denied (Minn. Dec.

“[A]n act is committed with sexual intent when the actor perceives himself to be acting based on sexual desire or in pursuit of sexual gratification.” review denied (Minn. Dec.

“When a defendant denies that conduct occurred, the intoxication defense is unavailable because he has not placed intent at issue.” n.5 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Dec.

5, 11(a)(i) (2010) (defining “intimate parts” and “sexual contact”); (requiring state to show that defendant acted with sexual or aggressive intent and that defendant’s act involved intentional touching of intimate parts), review denied (Minn. Dec.

“[B]ecause intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved by inferences drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” (“[A] showing of sexual intent does not require direct evidence of 4 the defendant’s desires or gratification because a subjective sexual intent typically must be inferred from the nature of the conduct itself.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.

For example, criminal sexual conduct involving sexual contact is a specific-intent crime because sexual contact requires proof of “sexual or aggressive intent.” (quoting Minn.Stat.