Missouri House Approves Rep. John McCaherty’s Legislation to Protect Child Victims of Sexual Abuse

State Rep. John McCaherty wants Missouri voters to have the opportunity to strengthen the state constitution to better protect child victims of sexual abuse. The Missouri House passed McCaherty’s proposed constitutional amendment (HJR 16) that would allow evidence of past wrongdoing by an alleged sex offender in cases of child sexual abuse. McCaherty said the allowance of propensity evidence in such cases would give prosecutors a powerful tool to put sex offenders behind bars.

“Legal precedent here in Missouri has excluded propensity evidence in these cases, which has made it much more difficult for justice to be served. Too often these trials come down to the word of a frightened child being forced to relive a traumatic event versus the word of an adult,” said McCaherty, R-Murphy. “I’m confident Missourians will agree with me that we should protect our children by allowing evidence of past offenses to be entered as evidence into these cases.”

House Speaker Tim Jones said he too believes Missouri voters will support a change that will help put dangerous sex offenders behind bars. He praised McCaherty for his hard work on this important issue. “Rep. McCaherty has been instrumental in leading the effort to make this much-needed change,” said Jones. “Because of his efforts we are now one step closer to passing this powerful piece of legislation that will better protect child victims of sexual abuse.”

Eric Zahnd, Platte County Prosecuting Attorney and President of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys also praised Rep. McCaherty for his leadership on this vital issue.  “Permitting juries to know about a defendant’s prior sex offenses may well be the most important thing we can do to protect Missouri’s children from predators,” said Zahnd. Missouri lags behind other states and the federal government in allowing this evidence, and Missouri’s prosecutors thank Rep. McCaherty for doing everything he can to fix that problem.”

McCaherty’s proposed constitutional amendment would, upon voter approval, allow relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, to be admissible in the prosecution for a crime of a sexual nature involving a victim under 18 years of age for the purpose of corroborating the victim's testimony or demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit the crime. The legislation also makes it clear that the judge would have the final decision on whether to allow the evidence.

McCaherty said the change would bring Missouri law in line with the standard for child sexual abuse cases used by the federal government and many other states. He noted that Missouri stopped allowing propensity evidence after a ruling made by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2007 in State v. Ellison. The Court’s ruling said the state law that allowed the admission of propensity evidence violated the Missouri Constitution. McCaherty said it is time to change the constitution to make it clear that such evidence should be allowed in order to protect victims of child sexual abuse.

“At the federal level and in many other states we see the allowance of propensity evidence as an effective tool to corroborate the testimony of a child victim. It’s time for Missouri to strengthen its constitution to extend the same protections to children here in our state,” said McCaherty.

The proposed constitutional amendment passed through the House by a bipartisan vote of 130-23. It now moves to the Missouri Senate for discussion. If approved by both chambers it will be put on the November 2013 ballot for consideration by Missouri voters.

Mo. Republican pushes to allow more evidence in child sex abuse cases

By: Wes Duplantier
State Capitol Bureau
Links: HJR16

(MDN News) -- Republicans in the state Capitol said Thursday that they want to change the state constitution to make it easier for local authorities to prosecute sex crimes committed against children. State Rep. John McCaherty, R-High Ridge, told members of the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee on Thursday prosecutors should be able to tell juries about crimes that defendants have committed or been accused of in the past.
Lawmakers have tried to authorize the admission of such evidence before through state law. But the the Missouri Supreme Court has struck down the law, throwing out that kind of evidence, called propensity evidence.
The court said the evidence is inadmissible because it violates a defendant's constitutional right to face their accuser and the constitutional right that someone be indicted by a grand jury before facing trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on whether such evidence should be admissible in criminal trials.
McCaherty acknowledged that his amendment would contradict provisions of the state and federal Constitutions that allow someone to face their accuser when they are accused of a crime.
But he said prosecutors need that kind of evidence to get convictions in such abuse cases because physical evidence often not available, as children sometimes report sexual abuse months or years after it occurs.
"The problem in this case is that the victim is six years old," he said. "You have the word of a six-year-old, who is sitting on the standing, being questioned by attorneys and reliving everything that has happened in her life, against a member of the community."
Jason Lamb, the Executive Director of the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, told committee members that the constitutional change is needed because young victims can be intimidated during a criminal trial .
"Children are children," he said. "They know what happened to them. They don't always know how to tell what happened to them."
Lamb called the proposed constitutional amendment "the single most powerful piece of legislation" that lawmakers could pass to protect children.
But the proposed amendment is getting some push back from people who say it could put defendants in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. The proposed amendment would let judges decide what evidence ultimately comes in and what doesn't.
But Rep. Mike Colona said he thinks elected judges would be reluctant to turn down any evidence in child sex cases.
"Don't get me wrong, of course we want to put these people away," said Colona, D-St. Louis. "But I don't want to create a scenario where a defendant is, kind of de facto, guilty before proven innocent."
Colona said he thinks juries are already inclined to believe children who are recounting something a traumatic as alleged sexual abuse. And he said defense lawyers already face many difficulties in cross-examining children and getting juries to remember their client's right to due process.
The proposed amendment would let judges decide what evidence comes in and what doesn't. But Colona said judges in the state who face elections would to turn down any evidence in child sex cases, for fear of being labeled as sympathetic to such crimes.
The measure is still pending before the crime prevention committee. If it passes both the House and Senate, it would go to a statewide vote in 2014.

Stricter abortion regulations pass in Missouri House

Women no longer would be able to get an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless a second doctor approves the procedure, according to a bill passed by the Missouri House Thursday [March 17]. Additionally, doctors may be fined if they perform the late-term procedure without a second opinion. Majority Floor Leader and bill sponsor Tim Jones, R-St. Louis County, said a fetus is viable at 20 weeks of pregnancy. "And it is a child, it's not a fetus; it's not a section of cells, it's a life," he said. "If we're going to start talking about the health and the welfare of the mother and all that, let's talk about the health and the welfare of the other life." Rep. John McCaherty, R-High Ridge, said it is important to remember the restrictions of the bill apply only to women who are more than 20 weeks pregnant. "At five months, my goodness, if you can't make a decision in five months, then there's more of a problem there than just the will to have an abortion," McCaherty said. Some opponents of the bill argued it may be difficult for women of rural areas to access a second doctor, especially in the event of a medical emergency. Others, like Tishuara Jones, D-St. Louis, spoke in opposition of any government control over a woman's decision. "Get your hands out of my belly," she said. "Get them out, because this bill criminalizes the doctor-patient relationship, and it tells women what to do with their bodies and their children." Because the bill and its substitute passed with majority votes, the measure now will go to Senate committees for debate.