Tatum ran a pawn shop. Police became suspicious of one of Tatum's employees, Newton, who was engaged in illegal fencing activities with known burglars. Undercover detectives gained Newton's confidence and sold him and Tatum some jewelry. Evidence was presented at trial that Tatum knew or should have known that the jewelry was stolen. He was convicted of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act for conspiring to deal in stolen property. He was sentenced to seven and one-half years in prison. His criminal intent was based on his and Newton's dealings with the undercover officers during the sting operation. Tatum appealed. What do you think the rule is? [Tatum v. State of Florida, 857 So.2d 331, Ct. App., Fla. (2003)]