In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) for this proposition. While Walker's argument is difficult to assess in its summary form, we perceive the question to be whether we should interpret the statute as requiring separate proof of scienter with respect to an element for which the legislature has not specifically required proof of knowledge. We have encountered this question in a variety of settings, including statutes we concluded were meant to establish strict Hability for so-called "white collar" crimes. Enservco, Inc. v. Indiana Securities Div., 623 N.E.2d 416 (Ind.1998) (declining to read scienter requirement into franchise fraud statute); accord Hacienda Mexican Rest. of Kalamazoo Corp. v. Hacienda Franchise Group, Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). As we observed in State v. Keihn, 542 N.E.2d
holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction holding trial court erred in giving jury instruction requiring scienter in franchise fraud case holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury holding that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions that offered alternative theories of murder