JC School Teacher Facing Sex Charges

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

The Cole County grand jury has indicted a Jefferson City Public Schools band teacher on two counts of sexual contact with a female student.

Christopher Knehans

The indictment, filed Tuesday afternoon with the Cole County circuit court, charged Christopher Knehans, 37, of 740 Glendale Drive, with the contact on two different days last month.

The first charge says contact occurred on or about Sept. 10, when he touched a female student’s breasts and genitals.

The second count says an incident occurred on or about Sept. 23, and that Knehans touched a female with his genitals.

No probable cause statement was provided with the indictment, Prosecutor Mark Richardson explained, because “the indictment is based upon a probable cause finding by the grand jury” and is not placed in the court file.

The charges identify Knehans as a teacher at both Thomas Jefferson Middle School and Jefferson City High School.

District officials confirmed Tuesday he was the band instructor at the middle school and one of several assistant band directors at the high school.

The indictment identified the victim as a female student at the high school.

Richardson said the charges involve only one student.

Superintendent Brian Mitchell said district administrators were told Sept. 27 about “allegations of inappropriate behavior” involving Knehans and a student, and

Knehans immediately was placed on paid administrative leave.

He will remain on paid leave while both the district’s internal investigation and the ongoing law enforcement probe continue.

“Disciplinary action, including termination and revocation of his teaching certification, are options” for the future, Mitchell said.

Knehans is scheduled to appear for arraignment before Cole County Judge Dan Green on Nov. 16.

He posted a $5,000 surety bond Oct. 3 and his attorney, Scott Hamblin, filed a request for “discovery” information from the prosecutor on Oct. 4 — two weeks before the indictment was issued.

Hamblin did not return a message requesting a comment for this story, and Knehans could not be reached.

More like this story

wow 1 year, 7 months ago

Innocent until proven guilty....and although no electronic (IE Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc) conversation reportedly took place...this is another reason why Teacher and Student relationships need to be restricted to school functions during school hours only. After that, no contact is acceptable unless the students parents are aware of what is going on and allow that contact to occur....and even then the student teacher relationship/conversations need to be closely monitored by the parents.

To all you good teachers...please keep doing a good job and thank you for being in the classrooms....but this guy a is perfect example of why a teachers restricted access to a student is more important than a school system trying to make good use of the latest technological gimmick! Again innocent until proven guilty, but had this kids parents been less trusting and more parent like, had the system been a bit more restrictive, perhaps this situation could have been avoided.

JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago

What if this happened during school hours? OK then?

Punish the crime. Don't restrict relationships. Instead of making laws against facebook, enforce laws against sexual abuse.

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

wow, you seem to know a lot more than there is in the article. How, when, where...

wow 1 year, 7 months ago

No matter when this happened, if it did happen, it's not good....but the thing is, this fella is accused of some serious stuff. The 1st accusation is that "on Saturday Sept 10th "he touched a female student’s breasts and genitals". The second accusation is that "on Friday September 23rd he touched a female with his genitals". 1st let's remember innocent until proven guilty...next let's do a bit of Dick Tracey.

Sept 10th was a non school day...a Saturday. So was the kid required to be at a school event where this reported incident occurred? Or was there some type of scheme used to lure the student to an area where the reported incident happened? Either way...how did the the teacher gain access to the victim? Next....September 23rd was a Friday....again same questions arise, but add this one....did the accused feel so safe in the teacher student setting that he felt comfortable enough to act on his need for sexual gratification?

In the event the student is just making up allegations or the accusations are true, either way, the parents and the school system failed to take every measure to prevent this incident. Even though teachers and K-12 students will have harmless educational relationships in and out of the classrooms...those relationships should be monitored/restricted by the parents and school system. Now it has not been said if the student or teacher communicated on "Facebook", so Facebook is cool with me. But I don't think "ADULT" teachers and K-12 students "KIDS", I don't think they should be allowed unfettered freedom to converse or interact on Facebook or anywhere else. Forget technology...a child safety is at risk...not to mention some ones professional career could go down the tubes because of a confused and angry child.

How many of you let your K-12 kid go out alone with his/her teacher? Seems like common sense to me. In closing...I don't know anymore than you do about this case. But I do hope that if this guy didn't do it...I hope he can have his life back. However if he did do it...then the court system needs to act accordingly. Parents protect your kids, stay involved...any ADULT/Teacher/ conversing alone with a child and not informing the parent of the content of those conversations is not only wrong, it's a warning sign and an avenue for a child to be victimized. If a parent allows this to happen, oh well who wants to bear that burden?

muleman 1 year, 7 months ago

A lot of high school seniors are 18 years old and therefore they are adults

gofish 1 year, 7 months ago

So what about the other possibility? That the student willingly entered into a relationship with the (inappropriate) teacher that at some point became (unlawfully) sexual? It doesn't say that the student reported the conduct, only that the school officials "were told". They could have been told by a friend of the student, or another 3rd party who learned of the "consensual" affair. Maybe another student walked in on something in progress.

It would be highly unusual to find a teenage girl somewhere she didn't want to be without choosing to remain or fighting her way out. True kidnappings for the purposes of sexual assault are extremely rare.

In the digital age, electronic communications between teachers, parents, and students are far more help than harm. As to Email, Facebook, or other electronic means of communication, I am highly against making it illegal for everyone to communicate based upon single criminal examples. I agree with JC Lifer. Punish the criminal for the criminal act.

The reality is that teachers and babysitters can have private contact with any student, 5 days a week, Clergy, Sunday school teachers and youth group leaders 1-2 days a week. You can't realistically prevent every bad thing from happening. But you can prosecute the criminal that violates a sacred trust.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

"It would be highly unusual to find a teenage girl somewhere she didn't want to be without choosing to remain or fighting her way out."

Excuse me? I can assure you - it's not hard to get cornered and not know what to do until it's over and you feel you can leave. Women get raped without "fighting their way out" - it's called fear. You don't have to be faced with a weapon in order to be afraid to fight. A teenage girl faced with a sexually agressive older man might well feel she could do nothing but submit. That's why it's called abuse!

gofish 1 year, 7 months ago

Twice? By the same person that doesn't live in your household?

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

Clearly, you've never been a teenage girl and you don't know the first thing about them. Let me enlighten you. When I was 15, I was the first kid on the bus. One day my 60+ year old driver stopped the bus, came back and sat in the seat with me, told me how great I was, kissed me on the cheek and gave me a big, non-platonic hug. I didn't tell my friends or anyone until the end of the school day, when I knew I'd have to get back on that bus and I'd be the last one off. So I went to my best friend's mother and asked her for a ride home. If it hadn't been for the fact that I realized I'd be alone with him every day twice a day, I'd have told no one. Why? Because I was embarassed and humiliated. So yes. You might well find yourself cornered by the same man twice before you say anything.

Oh - and the driver when I was 15 was never fired or even disiplined. The school just changed his bus route so I wasn't on his bus anymore. The next year, he was the driver on my route again. That's when I started driving to school. These days people would sue for stuff like that, but it's a clear example of what happens when people assume the girl had to have some culpability.

JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago

And some girls have wild fantasies and don't mind destroying a man's life with their little games and wild thoughts.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

I'm making no accusations of guilt or innocence. I take exception to gofish's insinuation that the girl must have wanted it or she would have fought her way out or otherwise avoided the contact.

wow 1 year, 7 months ago

I agree punish the criminal for committing the crime..but that's not the issue here. At issue is if an Adult/Teacher should be allowed to have unfettered access to communicate with a K-12 student/child...and to that I say HECK NO!
Somehow the right for Adults/Teachers to exchange unmonitored Facebook communications with other Adults/Teachers got mixed up with Adults/Teachers needing to have restricted communications with K-12 students. Teachers/Adults DON'T HAVE A RIGHT to unmonitored communications with K-12 kid just because...and when there is communication the K-12 students parents need to have given their approval each and every time the communication happens!

True Up...not every bad thing can be prevented, but those that can...need to be and thus even though our Clergy, Teachers, Babysitters have access to K-12 children...ponder this. The parent get's to choose the Babysitter and Clergy their K-12 kid deals with. Also when the kid is dealing with the Clergy or Babysitter, the parent knows about it. Even then we still know about the many Pedophile Priest's and babysitters. As for the Teacher...the teacher is not chosen by the parent...and since up until recently the Missouri School system did not report Teachers who have either been convicted or accused of this type of crime, there are an unknown number of Pedophiles, Rapist, Sexual Abuser's etc, etc, lurking in the hallways of Missouri schools waiting for their opportunity to pounce. Sooooo it's very easy to understand that although we have to promote proper use of technology....THERE ISN'T ONE technological gain worth adding to the sexual victimization of children!

Again...this recent JCMS/HS tragedy may not be a facebook, twitter situation...but it SURE DOES gives credence to why Adult Teachers do not need to be interacting with K-12 kids unless the kids parents are aware, approve of the interaction and the Adult Teacher and School are aware of the parental consent. What's so hard about that....to me it seems like common sense....and in the case of my K-12 student. If any Adult/Teacher out there is not abiding by my rule...as soon as I find out, I'll deal with my youngin and..they the ADULT?TEACHER will regret their lapse in judgement!!!!

bluesfan13 1 year, 7 months ago

What about when your "kid" turns 18 and is still in High School and refuses to sign the paper allowing you the right to access their records and talk to their teachers?

gofish 1 year, 7 months ago

"Unfettered access" occurs every time a teacher speaks to a child before/after class about an assignment, makeup work, grades, or behavior. To ask for parental permission each and every time isn't realistic. There are federal laws against disclosing a students private information in front of others which necessitates private conversations. I'm against punishing the outstanding teachers (majority) for the acts of a few.

"THERE ISN'T ONE technological gain worth adding to the sexual victimization of children!" That assumes there is a pattern of sexual abuse resulting from electronic communications that is statistically greater than any other means of contact.

Certainly, the amount of speculation will be cleared up once more facts become available.

JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago

Wow. you seem to be trying to make a point that the burden of the responsibility for teacher/student communications belongs on the teacher. For sure, I agree that inappropriate communication is the responsibility of the teacher, and teachers crossing the line should be burned severely. However, the overall burden regarding communications with students that you seem to be talking about is more incumbent on the parents to get involved with their student's education, and for parents to have good rapport with each of their child's teachers. You want to shut out the teachers communicating with the child, but the sad fact is that 75% of the parents out there don't care about their child's education nearly as much as the child's teachers. I have several teacher friends who complain that they never meet or talk to the majority of their student's parents. Invitations to parent/teacher conferences are ignored. Open houses are poorly attended. Few parents take advantage of online portals to see what is happening in their child's educational life.

Your demands to limit and restict communications between teachers and students are going to be more harmful than any good that might come out of it. The teachers that take time to communicate and help most of these students are often the only adult in the world that cares about the student.

I'm glad to hear that you care about your kids and are involved in their education. You are apparently in the minority, as most parents just view school as a way to baby-sit their kids, and that the teacher is the one who has to teach kids manners, right from wrong, correct behavior, how to eat healthy, how to dress, etc. Many parents are totally absent as for being real parents to their kids.

cookiepie 1 year, 7 months ago

Unless I missed it, which is possible when we just get the short free version of the story here, the charge is for conduct with a student, NOT conduct with a minor. There is a difference, meaning age to consent. K-12 Student is a little misleading if this occured at all with someone 17 or 18, a legal adult.

bluesfan13 1 year, 7 months ago

I was just about to post the same thought. He was not charged with child molesting, statutory rape, or any other charge related to touching a minor.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

The girl in question may well be over 18. She's in high school. It's possible. That completely doesn't matter. There is a reason for the law prohibiting sexual contact between a teacher and student. People in authority over kids - even 18 year old kids - have a greater duty than people not in that position. Abusing their authority and the trust placed in them is simply wrong.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

Oh please spare us the ludicrous argument you are heading for. You know perfectly well there is a difference between activities between two consenting adults who DON'T have a student/teacher relationship.

JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago

What if both are gay?

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

Really? You had to go there? So much for being spared the ludicrous argument.

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

JCLifer's post should get extra points for skipping all the intermediate steps and going for the most ludicrous comment possible.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

Nooooo. My point of view is that it's okay for the government to prevent a person with authority over another person from taking advantage of that relationship.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

Banning killing, raping or stealing may be based upon morals, but there is a huge difference between between banning them and banning a consentual relationship. Only an fool would disagree with that...or someone who's too holier than thou to admit it. The problem with the student/teacher relationship is you can never tell if it's truly consentual and that is why it is banned.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

If you think a non-consentual relationship is the same as a consentual one, yep...I would consider you a fool. If you think there should not be a law to protect people from nonconsentual relationships, I'd consider you a fool.

Believe what you want. I respect your right to even beliefs I consider foolish. If you want to believe the world is flat, that's foolish, but you have every right to beleive it. Preach it from the mountaintop. But don't try to stop other people from embracing the belief that it's round. What you want is to forbid people you don't even know, and will never know nor care about, from having consentual relationships because you don't approve of them. That's the difference. You would deny people the right to marry who they want because you don't agree with their choices; you don't find them moral. If you don't find gay marriage acceptable, then don't marry a person of your same sex. You are free to do as you will. I simply think other's should have the same choice.

I'll say no more on the topic of homosexuality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article. The issue here is whether a teacher should have sexual contact with a student. Gay or straight doesn't enter into it.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess you really DO think it's okay for a teacher, a person in a position of authority over students, to have sexual contact with a student so long as it's consentual? Here I thought you were just trying to stir the pot and change the subject to one you love to go on and on and on about. I stand corrected. Or do you agree it's proper to protect students from exploitation? Because that's all this is about.

asb explained the rationale behind this law far better than I.

You don't know me. I never said you were evil nor in any way tried to demonize you. I said you were welcome to your beliefs. But you try to to turn even that around. I'm sick to death of this particular discussion and I'm done. You want to stick to teachers and students - that's a discussion on the issue at hand. But I really can't think of what I'd say about it I haven't already said.

JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago

Well, Duh!

asb 1 year, 7 months ago

The basis for the ban is rooted in sexual harrassment law, not morality. An authority figure, whether boss or teacher, can coerce sex from an underling or student, regardless of age. There may be morals based support from the public for banning this relationship, but once the student is 18, the issue becomes one only of harrassment. This particular law may be difficult to enforce if the student doesn't complain, a requirement of most harrassment tests. Why would the government have an interest in sexual coercion? It could be a power play by an islamo-facist-socialist government determined to destroy America (Graceful's perspective), or it could be the publicly approved expression of the government's role in curtailing abuse of power, considered appropriate in contemporary America. Maybe it's both . . . goverrnment userping power through the natural tendency of power to concentrate, and at the same time an expression of public morality through the exercise of politics. BTW, I took a vote among myself and my cats and we've decided that regarding homosexuality, JMO is superior to Grace, but Grace likely is superior to JMO regarding flavor . . . must be time to feed the cats . . .

asb 1 year, 7 months ago

I didn't say it wasn't immoral, I said the government's role isn't one of morals enforcement. I specifically said it was a moral issue to the public. Grace, I'm lazy enough to let others think and even speak for me, but when you do it I get headaches.

asb 1 year, 7 months ago

And another thing, dang it, just when you most resemble a mean dog with a fishhook in its ear you say something very very important; "all law is about morality." You're kinda right. It's too simple but everybody needs to understand that the roots of law are in rules of conflict inherent in a social species, and while there are different names for the scale and source, I'll give you that law is rooted in morals. Where the fishhook starts to show again is when you set yourself, or a church, as the definers of those morals and claim that they are invariant. Morals are not relative, you won't hang that on me, but they are not invariant.

asb 1 year, 7 months ago

"The people are supposed to make the determinations of what is moral and immoral." You humanist dog! "certain people that hold certain views" sounds a little nervous. Beyond the philosophical connection between morals and law, this is a sexual harrassment law issue, not a traditional morals violation.

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

Only a little of the law is about morality. Most of it is about maintaining order; keeping the thugs under control and the rest of us safe.

Morality and justice are concepts we think about so we can sleep at night. If the law was about justice, it wouldn't be so difficult to get funding for the Public Defenders Office - it would be much more equal to funding for all the prosecutors we have.

asb 1 year, 7 months ago

Is anybody else annoyed by the sudden need for the NT to notify you by email that somebody has posted in a thread you are posting in? This is pure #$@%! I've responded to these notices requesting they stop, and they're clearly a notice type not meant to be replied to, which again is annoying because standard practice would be to inform the recipient not to respond. So Mr. Brown, would you please stop sending me email about thread posting? Please? Whatever consultant told you there'd be a positive was wrong and should be punished with pages and pages of Grace and Steve Sampson gibbering.

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

I agree asb. I get quite enough junk mail already.

asb 1 year, 7 months ago

Then it's not just me . . . thank God! I though the NT (which sometimes appears to get it's editorial perspective, and most of Jim Dyke's cartoons, from a German old-folks home in Argentina) was trying to get me to quit posting.

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

If you are going to jump into this hog-wallow, you may want to consider a separate nic backed by a unique email account and a strong password. As to the News Tribune's editorial stance, that's a long-term issue but they are consistent. You can count on them.

wow 1 year, 7 months ago

The burden of responsibility is not only the TEACHER'S, it's the PARENT'S TOO and as the ADULT AUTHORITY FIGURE/PARENT BOTH ARE EXPECTED TO KEEP THINGS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. Also...legally a 17+ year old student can be considered an adult, but let's not who forget who the AUTHORITY FIGURES really are. Let's not forget that the Board of Education has a responsibility to protect the K-12 student and the the teacher and the students parents most certainly have an obligation to be involved. Interaction between Teachers and K-12 Students DURING SCHOOL FUNCTIONS IS EXPECTED AND HAS must OCCUR. Yet it's also something the parent knows about and consents to and the school monitors. The rules say exchanging facebook, twitter, e-mails during school hours is not allowed! SOOOOO, STOP AND LISTEN!!!!

I'm not against using technology for K-12 student/teacher interaction for school related business during the regular school hours or in cases of emergencies, but that interaction has to be monitored , by the PARENT and SCHOOL AUTHORITIES. But unless the people involved are blood related and even then the parents should be aware of what is going on. There is NO, NONE, NADA, NIX, NINE, NOT A SINGLE ACCEPTABLE REASON for a Teacher and a K-12 student to be exchanging facebook, twitter, e-mail, making plans, hookin-up, etc, etc, etc, NO ACCEPTABLE REASON at all.

I feel even stronger about protective measures especially since the Mo-AG has recently allowed a person who confessed to molesting his gran-daughter go free. The man confessed to this horrible crime, has to seek SEX OFFENDER counseling, BUT ISN'T A CONVICTED CRIMINAL NOR HAS TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER. Apparently this was done in order to protect the 12 YEAR OLD victims. Also..since the SCHOOL UNIONS threatened a law suit.....OUR ESTEEMED AG decided that MO. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS are no longer REQUIRED to report TEACHERS that have bad performance histories or been fired for COMMITTING SEX ACTS/ CRIMES w/K-12 students!
I can't make parents "PARENT UP" or force school officials to institute the proper policies...but I can point things out that are wrong....and that's what I've done. I am going to do everything in my power to make sure my parental obligations are properly met. In closing...if this teacher is innocent...hope things get beck to normal for him. If he's not, let the Court system handle him appropriately. No matter...this is exactly why teacher/K12 student interaction has to be restricted to school functions and monitored... IMHO... allowing non restrictive facebook/twitter non school related interaction is a recipe for disaster.

gofish 1 year, 7 months ago

Is it fair to say then that your standard of access doesn't need to be the same as my standard? Should the school have guidelines for teachers and then let the parents decide how much/little contact their child has with his/her teacher outside of the classroom? When I was in school I dang sure wouldn't have been interested in talking to a teacher after school. I wonder if the scope of your concern is really that big? It's these single incidents that get blown out of proportion as if sexual abuse runs rampent in the classrooms. I agree, one is too many, however, at JCHS, sexual harrassment and sexual assualts are perpetrated daily in the hallways every time classes change. I fear far more for the "peers" who have unfettered access than I do the occasional teacher gone bad. Step back and gain perspective of the big picture, not just the single accusation.

cookiepie 1 year, 7 months ago

High School Students, esp juniors and seniors, barely see their own teachers as someone of authority, let alone a teacher from a different school, of a lower grade. Just because someone is a teacher, doesn't mean every child in the universe is his/her student.

wow 1 year, 7 months ago

You're right...I'll just make sure my child is protected. You're right just because an Adult is an Adult, it doesn't mean he/she is an Adult to every child...so again I'll just make sure my child's interaction with Adult/Teachers is my concern. Even though in the school systems..the JC system in particular we have several Adults/Teachers who have been accused and convicted of Sex Crimes against students/children, but there's no need to worry because "THIS" most recent situation is an "ISOLATED" incident. Even though School Officials don't have to and are not reporting the criminal conduct of teachers who have been convicted of Sex Crimes against students...again no worry because Juniors and Seniors rarely see Adults/Teachers as "AUTHORITY FIGURES". It's your choice to just wait until we learn about more victims....me I'm gonna handle mine now!

It's a shame but regretfully it seems like it's gonna take a few innocent kids of influential parents to have their lives shattered before anyone will listen to and act on what is nothing more than common freakin sense....and personally that makes me sick!

For those parents who refuse to provide or enlist the protective over-site...know this. The Wolf may not get your flock today. But he/she is out there sniffing and lurking. Thing is, are you willing to gamble with your child's safety....how do you think the parents of these two most recent victims would comment? I cannot answer those questions for anyone else...but MY home is guarded by vigilant "SHEEP DAWGS"...I'm pretty sure other homes have the same....but in the end it is an individual choice.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID