looked, since, if the gravamen of this offense is spying for this unlawful purpose, and it be shown that the spying took place, and the purpose is inferable from the circumstances of the case, the guilt or innocence of [the appellant] does not in any sense hang upon a matter of chance as to whether the persons upon whom he sought to spy were actually in his view.’ Butts v. State, 97 Ga.App. 465, 103 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1958).... The prohibited act is ‘peeping’ with the requisite wrongful purpose or intent. If the act and the intent are in concurrence, the crime is complete regardless of what or who may or may not be subject to the perpetrator’s unlawful gaze.” 154 Ga.App. at 543-44, 268 S.E.2d at 737-38. Accord State v. Serrano, 145 Ariz. 498, 501, 702 P.2d 1343, 1346 (Ariz.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). Such an interpretation is consistent with the
holding that a court must first determine whether the intent of congress is clear or instead the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue holding with respect to a similar arizona statute the prohibited act is looking into the residential structure with the requisite wrongful purpose or intent  regardless of what or who may or may not be subject to the perpetrators unlawful gaze holding that a statute stating that a city ordinance may not make unlawful a condition or act approved or authorized under the act or the commissions rules or orders  was unmistakably clear holding congress may impose civil and criminal sanctions with respect to the same act or omission holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law