dissenting.
In this criminal nonsupport case, there is no controversy as to whether the defendant knowingly failed to comply with a legal obligation to provide adequate support for his son. The only question is whether, in failing to provide such support, he did so without good cause.
This dissent does not take issue with the determination by the majority that evidence presented by the defendant injected the issue of “good cause” into the case.
With the injection of “good cause,” the state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, as an element of its case, “that in failing to provide ... support the defendant did so without good cause.” MAI-CR3d 322.08 and the statute cited by the majority are in complete accord.
In a jury trial, the jury would have been instructed that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “... in failing to provide ... support the defendant did so without good cause.” The MAI-CR3d definition of “good cause” is in complete accord with the statute cited in the majority opinion. The jury would have been instructed that “good cause” means any substantial reason why the defendant is unable to provide adequate support. “Good cause does not exist if the defendant purposely maintains Ids inability to support.” (Emphasis supplied.) MAI-CR3d 322.08.
As is clear from the majority opinion, it is not a function of an appellate court to weigh evidence. Evidence tending to prove guilt must be accepted as true. All contrary evidence and inferences are to be ignored.
The trial court is presumed to know the law and to have followed the law.
This dissent is limited to the holding of the majority that there was not sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction. Because the sufficiency of the evidence to establish all the other elements of the crime is not questioned, only proof on the “good cause” element need be reviewed.
There was evidence that the defendant persisted for months in limiting his efforts to obtain income to unproductive activity; he devoted all of his productive time to running a bar that was not making money when he bought it and did not make money under his management. This allows the reasonable inference that he purposely maintained his inability to provide adequate support. He was charged with failing to provide adequate support for six consecutive months. The evidence was that he made no voluntary child support payments for a period of fifteen months.
The evidence just described is sufficient to support a finding that good cause did not exist because the defendant purposely maintained an inability to support. To *568hold that it is not sufficient requires weighing evidence. It also raises doubt that evidence tending to prove guilt was accepted as true and that all contrary evidence and inferences were ignored.
A question that comes to mind is whether the same holding would have been made had the case been tried to a jury. The reversal of the judgment of conviction in this case will result in trial courts directing verdicts against the state in similar cases. The state has no right to appeal such rulings. The ill effects of the majority opinion will not be limited to this case.