to separate those who understand the wrongful nature of their act from those who do not, but does not require knowledge of the precise consequences that may flow from that act once aware that the act is wrongful.”). “[C]ourts generally have not required proof of an additional culpable mental state when a statute has already prescribed a culpable mental state as to at least one element of the offense.” Celis, 416 S.W.3d at 428 n.13. Moreover, when it comes to the protection of children, we have frequently declined to impose a culpable mental state upon a circumstance-surrounding-conduct element of the offense in the absence of an express assignment of such a mental state—even when it was a circumstance that elevated the level of the offense. See, e.g., Aguirre, 22 S.W.3d at 475 & n.48 (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 848, 849-50
recognizing the right to intervene in cases like this recognizing cases in which this court has declined to impose a culpable mental state with respect to the element of a childs age in statutes that protect children holding that regarding rule 9011 this court is only concerned with documents filed  in this court and thus filings in state court provide no basis to impose sanctions under rule 9011 holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress holding congress may impose civil and criminal sanctions with respect to the same act or omission