In the Interest of: A.L.H. vs. Juvenile Officer(2023)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictOctober 3, 2023#WD85774
Decision date: October 19, 2018SD35300
Reversed
Procedural posture: Appeal from delinquency judgment of adjudication
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Related Legal Help
This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.
In the Interest of K.L.C., a minor ) ) K.LC., ) ) Minor-Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. SD35300 ) REYNOLDS COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, ) Filed October 19, 2018 ) Petitioner-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF REYNOLDS COUNTY
Honorable Benjamin Thompson
REVERSED AND REMANDED
K.L.C., a minor, appeals the trial court's delinquency judgment of adjudication finding him guilty "by clear, cogent and convincing evidence" of acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult. He asserts that the trial court committed error in that the appropriate and constitutionally mandated standard of proof is the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt." The Juvenile Officer concedes this error. In juvenile proceedings where the juvenile is accused of committing what would be criminal offenses if the juvenile were an adult, the proof that is constitutionally required during the adjudicatory stage of such delinquency proceedings is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In
re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1075, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970); see In re Fisher, 468 S.W.2d 198, 199 (Mo. 1971); C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officer, 22 S.W.3d 233, 236 (Mo.App. 2000); see also Rule 128.02 (comment) Missouri Court Rules (2017). Here, the trial court's expressed adherence to the "clear, cogent and convincing evidence" standard of proof in its judgment of adjudication is an evident erroneous application of law and resulted in K.L.C.'s adjudication based upon a standard of proof less than that constitutionally guaranteed to him. This error is a structural defect in the process that requires reversal. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281–82, 113 S. Ct. 2078, 2083, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993). The trial court's judgment of adjudication and its judgment of disposition based thereon are reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GARY W. LYNCH, J. – OPINION AUTHOR DON E. BURRELL, JR., P.J. – concurs NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J. – concurs
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rule 128.02
C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officer, 22 S.W.3d 233
This error is a structural defect in the process that requires reversal. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275
Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.
Issue: Did the trial court err by applying a "clear, cogent and convincing evidence" standard of proof in a juvenile delinquency adjudication for acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult?
Yes; the constitutionally mandated standard of proof in such proceedings is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the use of a lesser standard is a structural defect requiring reversal.
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictOctober 3, 2023#WD85774
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 21, 2023#ED111060
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMay 9, 2023#ED110623
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
Read opinionMissouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 16, 2025#ED113083
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2025#ED113203