Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the defendant for violating a court order when the defendant had not seen and was not proven to have actual knowledge of the order

No question identified. : QVESTION C4) PRESENTED . Pre. urstodys, Somedute sheuated on We 20\& order, The Gimina® Ur Way aod Noring tap Wer Son ¥o Fates on Quar lb) old, per The 2OIA order The, Missouri Eastern Bishkict ang Weckarn District Appea Courts con(ih ta heic opinions: the prior cules order In he Anse KS merely EN “Sarptusage | heread er Laiter rules actuol know Cedoe of Me Order 1S required, © Whereas when & defendant had nok seen and i$ Nok ~roven to overran ao lenow Redoe of the ordec She was Cnorged! Violakine ; she Shartd be convicted of ha crime of wioshon of thet poRutsr ander ana Whe rrody Sdnedur le he ocder SHprahed ? Cr yOwhelher the Court of Appeaks, upon review on Wa merity bor Gunt TL, can Monge Pre Home frome ofa har eed Sime From “on or Gloouk June (4, Lolq" Fo “Odolec iS be June 14, Voig" 2 CVV) This is & matte, oF frsb impression becauge Ib epelies Fo rFei Mare by Wrongdoing for the &rab Haein a non-homi cde, Non-viokenk caye COouatt ATT cnvichters ot interlerence wr, Custody). MA THis&{ Court sMowed Whe admission of Hacwen's Son erie ouk-of = court sSRARMAATS On the Quad Mhok Harwein hod forfeited her confronbRonod cighys dow “ contauing B® hove contact wit, wines AH, Bad wih hold ing in boFmoktsn GL to AH, Wh eee aloo Why bom Caw enforce m anh, The Appesk Court erranourty otficms pnts On RAK WI Giles v, OU fo rnta SS4 U.$,%8a Qua C> Whereas Uncon Lronted teWmony. Lan &® admilted without: GV a Snmowlng Mok del@rant A.W. is unavertabe ak Tria, and ZU & Showtng tak Horhvueln commited ony Giminak ack Tender Pre antes AH. Unsvoralle » oad pa inttnts 7 (3) & showing Mok Harbwein did So He prevent AU. from Rabtyloo! te . QuESTIOM Cs) PRESENTED Ss pf Gv) whekker Speatying We manntr ar Vemenb of an offense is Commiled ho@dsS the Seika Yo Proof of bat monner 3 (V) The Father hes s pottten of domesHe adouse , aleoio® Us ape, Mus Ugsge and hid nepkect, Q wWvekee whan intent ond imine ads ore ev ueked Con, Wa. Curt gro re domeske WoRence, ord bode wihrdsses -~ Ur Last OF PARTIES A wer eackes spetar ta Wa corphon of the case on Hie Covre PrQe. RELATED CASES ~ Harhoeiq Vi Missouri, No. Si 1Q-CV-4GS-FL, us dishict Court for me Gostarn Dighrick of NOCH CaroUine~, Weakrn Bivicton PSudgement entered AeiR 21,00, * Stoke v, Woarhwein , No, EBIOF4YUK, Missour) Gurk of Appeals , Eastren Dighich, Audpement entered Mou Bi 2022, e Stale ve Wackweing , Noe IQW=CROI4BA~-O1, EReventy rans ‘\ . 6 ° Sudiciol Cwatt | Starke of Missourt, Judge ent enteced December ‘4 29A0 end Amended Ochob&e %\, 2022. 2 Stale ve Herhoan, No, SCAATON, Svereme Gurt of Misgoury y Budsgement entered Aupusk 30,2022. + Reon Vv. Rorweun ,No, OFU-FCOOSG, Ciceuih Couch of Sk. Cnarkesr Lounky : Missourt i Fami by Court DWigton . Sudgemut entered Felony \4e, 2ON, © Harhoedn Ve Martweln, No, VeV-FCo057q ,Craath Gourk of Sb Oneckes County) TALCQoAN | Fomity. Courh Division . SUdgement entered SMA ALY 28,200, » Rachoan vWarkurtn , No, OAWU-FCOO&AG-02, ERey ent Qadi co Crrantht Cour Stoke of MiQsourt, Fosonity Courk Biviston, QaggeMeqh enkered dune io, 2014, ~ Harken ve Hackurin, Now ED 6543, Missous, Courh of AppesQs , Eastern Dishich, Audgement enkered March Oy, Oi... ~ US