State v. Nations

Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984 · Criminal Law

Criminal Lawendangering the welfare of a childknowinglyactual knowledgerecklessnesswillful blindnessattendant circumstancessubmissible case

Facts

Sandra Nations owned and operated the Main Street Disco, where police found a scantily clad sixteen-year-old girl dancing for tips. When officers asked about the girl's age, Nations said both girls were of legal age and that she had checked their identification when she hired them. The girl first claimed she was eighteen but later admitted she was sixteen, and she had no identification with her. The evidence showed, at most, that Nations did not know or refused to learn the girl's age.

Issue

Did the State make a submissible case under § 568.050 by proving that defendant knowingly encouraged a child less than seventeen years old to engage in harmful conduct, where the evidence showed only that defendant may have suspected or deliberately avoided learning the girl's age? More specifically, does "knowingly" require actual awareness that the child was under seventeen?

Rule

Under § 568.050, when the offense requires that the defendant knowingly encourage a child less than seventeen years old to engage in injurious conduct, the child's being under seventeen is a material attendant circumstance, and the State must prove the defendant actually was aware of that fact. Missouri's Criminal Code does not extend "knowingly" to willful blindness or awareness of a high probability of the fact's existence; such proof amounts only to recklessness.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Kansas City, Mia Torres manages a late-night lounge owned by Riverbend Social Club. Before allowing 16-year-old Kayla to begin a paid stage performance, Mia reads Kayla's learner's permit, which lists a birth date showing she is 16, and then tells her to go on anyway.

If Mia is charged under a statute requiring that she knowingly encourage a child less than seventeen years old to engage in conduct injurious to the child's welfare, which is the strongest argument for conviction?

Explanation. The age of the child is a material attendant circumstance. Under the majority rule, "knowingly" requires actual awareness that the child was less than seventeen. Reading identification that expressly shows the performer is 16 is direct evidence of actual knowledge. Recklessness or generalized risk is insufficient, and the State need not prove an intent to harm if the statute instead requires knowing encouragement of injurious conduct.