This was some evidence of what constitutes adequate support. Accord, State v. Reed, 181 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Mo. banc 2006) (โ[T]he existence of a child support order is merely evidence of what constitutes โadequate supportโ โ); State v. Sellers, 77 S.W.3d 2, 4โ5 (Mo.App.2002) (โ[A] child support order provides some evidence of what is adequate supportโ; evidence defendant never provided direct financial support and only sporadically provided the children with in-kind help โconstituted sufficient evidence that [the defendant] failed to provide adequate support to her childrenโ); State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Mo.App.1984) (โHere the state proved [the defendant] didn't provide a penny, but had financial assets well establishing his ability to support his son. In addition the support order provided some evidence of what was โadequateโ โ).
This was some evidence of what constitutes adequate support.Accord, State v. Reed, 181 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Mo. banc 2006) (โ[ T]he existence of a child support order is merely evidence of what constitutes โadequate supportโ โ); State v. Sellers, 77 S.W.3d 2, 4โ5 (Mo.App.2002) (โ[A] child support order provides some evidence of what is adequate supportโ; evidence defendant never provided direct financial support and only sporadically provided the children with in-kind help โconstituted sufficient evidence that [the defendant] failed to provide adequate support to her childrenโ); State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Mo.App.1984) (โHere the state proved [the defendant] didn't provide a penny, but had financial assets well establishing his ability to support his son. In addition the support order provided some evidence of what was โadequateโ โ).
Although nonsupport is not defined in ยง 568.040 as a continuing course of conduct, in State v. Davis, this court found that "[t]he crime of nonsupport is continuous and a `violation at any time within the limitation period' justifies a conviction." 675 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Mo.App. 1984) (citing State v. Arnett , 370 S.W.2d 169, 174 (Mo.App. 1963)). Other Missouri cases list nonsupport as an example of an offense which involves a continuous course of conduct.
Id. In State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410 (Mo.App. 1984) Judge Lowenstein lucidly analyzes the history of ยง 568.040 and the changes in its language. Defendant's argument โ the state failed to make a submissible case โ focuses on that part of the information charging him with failure to provide his daughter, Tammy Jean Nichols (Tammy), adequate support "between March 9, 1984 and March 9, 1985".
1997); Ford v. Ford, 867 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Mo.Ct.App.1993); State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 415 (Mo.Ct.App.1984); In re Marriage of D.M.S. and P.E.S., 648 S.W.2d 609, 615 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); Federbush v. Mark Twain Parkway Bank, 575 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Mo.Ct.App.1978); Sportsman v. Sportsman, 409 S.W.2d 787, 791 (Mo.Ct.App.1966). Rebound, Inc. v. Pugh (In re Bonner), 954 S.W.2d at 363.
The fact the minor child does not suffer deprivation of necessary food, clothing, lodging, medical or surgical attention, or that such needs are being supplied by another, does not abrogate the parent's obligation under the statute. State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 415-16 (Mo.App. 1984). KNOWINGLY
Because "[t]he legislature is presumed to know the law that has been amended, and to have used particular words in light of prior judicial and legislative action," we presume the legislature knew that valuations by assessors, boards of equalization, and the Commission were presumed to be correct. State v. Davis , 675 S.W.2d 410, 415 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984) (citing City of St. Joseph v. Hankinson , 312 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Mo. 1958) ). In 1992 the legislature amended sections 138.060.1 and 138.431.3 RSMo. Cum. Supp. 1992 to insert the language: "There shall be no presumption that the assessor's valuation is correct."
The variance between the total monthly support obligation of $ 458 referred to in the Amended Information and the amount of that obligation attributable to Son was not material. State v. Davis , 675 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984) (holding that a defendant convicted of criminal nonsupport was not prejudiced when there was an immaterial variance between the charging document and the evidence); State v. Arnett , 370 S.W.2d 169, 174-75 (Mo. App. 1963) ("One who is accused of stealing a fat hog should not be permitted to complain because the hog was lean."). The trial court did not err in overruling Martin's motion for judgment of acquittal because sufficient evidence supported a finding that Martin's arrearage, as it related to Son, was in excess of an aggregate of twelve monthly support payments required by court order.
We have enumerated the elements of the crime of criminal nonsupport. See State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Mo.App.W.D. 1984). Criminal nonsupport is a class A misdemeanor, unless the person obligated to pay child support commits the crime of nonsupport in each of six individual months within any twelve-month period, or the total arrearage is in excess of five thousand dollars, in either of which case it is a class D felony.
At that time the statute provided, "`A parent commits the crime of nonsupport if such parent knowingly fails to provide, without good cause, adequate support which such parent is legally obligated to provide for his minor child.'" State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 413-14 (Mo.Ct.App. 1984) (quoting Mo. Rev. Stat. ยง 568.040 (1978)). Unlike Utah's statute, Missouri's statute also provided, "`[s]upport' means food, clothing, lodging, and medical or surgical attention."