With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of officer Witten's testimony about exchanging the $20 bill with Walker in return for cocaine, the absence of the currency as an exhibit was simply a matter for the jury to weigh as finders of fact, rather than a matter for us to assess as an appellate court. See Tiller v. State, 541 N.E.2d 885 (Ind.1989). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. DICKSON and SELBY, JJ.; concur. DeBRULER and SULLIVAN, JJ., dissent with separate opinions. 1 . Conversely, Indiana courts have required proof of mental culpability in a number of less than "white collar" crimes where statutes did expressly provide that element. See, e.g., Snider v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind.1984) (presuming child molesting statute required proof of scienter); Wagerman v. State, 597 N.E.2d 13 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); Van Sant v. State, 523 N.E.2d 229

A: holding that trace amount of burnt cocaine residue found on altered beer can sufficient to support possession conviction
B: holding that trespass requires only proof of interference with right of possession of real property
C: holding proof of possession of stolen goods is sufficient evidence to sustain conviction for theft
D: holding conviction for possession of handgun with altered serial number required proof of knowledge of alteration
D.