With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to require proof of such culpability. See Id.; State v. Jones, 865 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo. banc 1993). Here, nothing in section 167.031 suggests that the legislature did not intend to require proof of a culpable mental state in causing non-attendance, specifically, proof that the parent acted knowingly or purposely. To the contrary, the necessity of proof of some level of scienter is implicit in the requirement that the parent “cause” their child to regularly attend school. To “cause” a child to do something implies an affirmative act on the part of the parent and requires that criminal responsibility for failure to comply with the statute be based on a failure to cause the child to attend, not merely on a lack of attendance per se. Cf. In Re Monnig, 638 S.W.2d 782, 788 (Mo.App. W.D.1982) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). The burden was on the State

A: holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
B: holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused  violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
C: holding burden of proof must be on prosecution to prove that particular home school curriculum was not adequate to avoid exposing parents to the risk of criminal prosecution should their suppositions of the adequacy of the home curriculum be mistaken however in good faith thus indicating mental state is relevant to guilt
D: holding that suppression by prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request by the defense violates due process where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irre spective of the good faith of the prosecution
C.