77, 81 (Mo.banc 1992). In Ward’s view, the inability of a person under the age of fourteen .to legally consent to sexual activity demonstrates that first-degree statutory sodomy, like first-degree sexual misconduct, requires proof of lack of consent. Thus, Ward concludes, first-degree sexual misconduct is included in first-degree statutory sodomy because the former may be established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to prove the latter offense. However, as Stokely confirms, the inability of a person under the age of fourteen to legally consent to sexual activity actually demonstrates that “[a]ge is the essential element” in statutory sexual offenses such as statutory sodomy, and thus the intent of the perpetrator and the consent of the victim are irrelevant. Id. (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Ybarra, 386 S.W.2d 384, 386
holding that mistake as to the age of the victim is no defense to statutory rape holding that against her will in the rape statute means without her consent and that the fact that the victim was under the age of consent was sufficient to establish that element holding that elements of rape do not include proof of the absence of a marital relationship between the accused and the victim recognizing that statutory rape has historically not required mens rea regarding element of vietims age holding that taking indecent liberties with a child is not a lesser included offense of statutory rape given the differing age elements