In the Interest of K.L.C., a minor. K.L.C., Minor-Appellant vs. REYNOLDS COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, Petitioner-Respondent
Decision date: October 19, 2018SD35300
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.
Opinion
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
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
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.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.