D owned a disco. D employed a girl at the disco who was 16 years old who danced for tips, i.e. stripper.
Police saw this and questioned D since they thought the girl was young.
D told police that she verified the age of the kid before she started dancing (untrue since girl didn't have ID the day D hired her).
D was charged with endangering the welfare of a child under the state's criminal code. It requires that the D "knowingly encourages, aids or causes" a child less than 17-years-old to be exposed to an environment injurious to the child's welfare.
D argued that she didn’t have the requisite intent since she didn't actually know the child was under 17.
Procedural History:
Lower court found D guilty.
MO COA reversed, D not guilty.
Issues:
Must a D have actual knowledge of the existence of the attendant circumstances which constitute the crime to "knowingly" engage in criminal conduct?
Holding/Rule:
A D must have actual knowledge of the existence of the attendant circumstances which constitute the crime to "knowingly" engage in criminal conduct
Reasoning:
The applicable criminal code defines knowingly as actual knowledge, excluding those cases where a D has "willfully shut his eyes" to avoid knowing.
MPC includes willful blindness, but the state code has not adopted that definition for knowingly. Thus, there has to be actual knowledge.
D did not check the girl's ID, but that does not prove that D actually knew the girl was less than 17.
D was only aware of a high probability that the girl was under 17 which does not amount to actual knowledge under the state criminal code.
