## Facts

- A.B., a 13-year-old boy, and M.R., a 14-year-old girl, were students in a school gym class.
- During class, A.B. approached M.R. from behind and poked her in the buttocks; later descriptions of the incident characterize the poke as to the center of the buttocks with about an inch of penetration.
- M.R. objected to the touching.
- A verbal confrontation followed, including insults, and the encounter escalated into a physical fight between A.B. and M.R.
- The school suspended A.B. for five days.
- Juvenile authorities filed a delinquency petition alleging misdemeanor sexual battery based on the nonconsensual touching of an intimate part (buttocks) under California Penal Code § 243.4(e).
- The juvenile court sustained the petition (true finding), declared A.B. a ward of the court, and placed him on probation with conditions including counseling and community service.
- A.B. appealed, arguing he poked M.R. to annoy her rather than for sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, and arguing the result was disproportionate because a sexual-battery adjudication could trigger sex-offender registration consequences.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding of misdemeanor sexual battery under Penal Code § 243.4(e) where the minor claimed the touching was meant to annoy, not to obtain sexual arousal or gratification.
2. Whether the adjudication should be overturned as disproportionate given the serious collateral consequences associated with a sexual-battery finding, including possible sex-offender registration.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s true finding and disposition.
- The court held that the juvenile court could find the required sexual purpose from the intentional, nonaccidental, nonconsensual touching of an intimate part and the surrounding circumstances, even if A.B. claimed a nonsexual motive such as annoyance.
- The court rejected the argument that potential registration and related consequences required recharacterizing the conduct or reversing when the statutory elements were satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 243.4(e), the required sexual purpose (sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse) may be proved by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the act and context.
- A deliberate, nonconsensual touching of the buttocks may qualify as touching an “intimate part” for purposes of misdemeanor sexual battery.
- A factfinder is not required to accept a minor’s asserted benign or nonsexual explanation when the nature of the contact and context support a finding that the touching was sexual abuse or otherwise met the statute’s intent element.
- On substantial-evidence review, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence and will uphold the finding if the record supports a reasonable inference of the required intent.
- Collateral statutory consequences tied to a qualifying sex offense generally do not supply an independent basis to set aside an adjudication where the prosecution proved the offense’s elements.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld A.B.’s juvenile adjudication for misdemeanor sexual battery after he intentionally poked a classmate’s buttocks in gym class, concluding that the juvenile court could infer the required sexual purpose from the nature of the nonconsensual touching and the circumstances, and that the seriousness of possible registration consequences did not justify reversal once the statutory elements were supported by substantial evidence.


In re A.B., 2011 WL 193402 (2011)