Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical sense, it's just the example) Let's also assume that we know for sure she had no sexual intent (eliminate mundane evidence matters). She convinces the patient the examination is necessary and he agrees to it. Only later he finds out the examination wasn't out of medical necessity. Is this sexual assault?
I'd argue no, and I'm quite sure the law is on my side (although I don't know how to qualify it in common law terms, at first I thought the mens rea was missing but a cursory web search seems to indicate that this is related to the 'consent' part of the assault charge, and not so much the 'sexual intention'. The literature doesn't seem to agree though).