John contends that failure to pay his entire child support obligation does not mean that he has failed to support his children. John contends that his child support obligation is too high because it was based on incorrect information presented at the default hearing. John alleges that he had a lawful excuse for his failure to entirely satisfy his child support obligation. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nonsupport of a child is a parent's failure, neglect or refusal without lawful excuse to provide for the support and maintenance of the parent's child who is in necessitous circumstances.
Constitutional mandates require that each element be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
John does not dispute that he is the father of these seven children. The oldest child was 16 years old at the time of this action. In Rupert, the defendant was charged with criminal nonsupport of a child when he paid slightly more than half of his accumulated child support obligation. The Kansas Supreme Court found that substantial evidence existed to show that the defendant failed to provide support. 247 Kan. at 518.