Is touching a child with lewd intent a violation of section 288, subdivision (a) of the Criminal Code?

Lopez argues a violation of section 288, subdivision (a) necessarily violates section 647.6, subdivision (a), because touching a child with lewd intent would disturb a reasonable person. Lopez's argument, however, is based on the erroneous premise that the disturbing nature of the conduct under section 647.6, subdivision (a) is not evaluated by the objective nature of the conduct alone (i.e., the conduct divorced from any consideration of what motivated the actor) but instead is evaluated by examining the conduct together with the actor's motivations and mental states. However, in the cases decided under section 647.6, subdivision (a), the actor's mental state is disregarded in evaluating whether the element of objectively disturbing conduct has been met. In every reported case in which the courts have upheld convictions under section 647.6, the defendant's objective conduct would have unhesitatingly irritated or disturbed a reasonable person had it been directed at that person regardless of the defendant's intent. ⁹ Conversely, in the only case reversing a conviction under section 647.6, subdivision (a), the court in People v. Carskaddon, supra, 49 Cal.2d 423, 318 P.2d 4 examined the defendant's conduct alone and held that regardless of the defendant's subjective plans (i.e., whether he might have intended later to molest the child) the conduct would not have unhesitatingly irritated or disturbed a reasonable person had it been directed at that person. (Id. at pp. 426-427, 318 P.2d 4.)