Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 211
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.071 (2026)

Certification of juvenile for trial as adult

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  211.071.  Certification of juvenile for trial as adult — procedure — mandatory hearing, certain offenses — misrepresentation of age, effect — report — dismissal order. — 1.  If a petition or motion to modify alleges that a child between the ages of fourteen and eighteen has committed an offense that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, the court may, upon its own motion or upon motion by the juvenile officer, the child, or the child's custodian, order a hearing and may, in its discretion, dismiss the petition or motion to modify and such child may be transferred to the court of general jurisdiction and prosecuted under the general law; except that, if a petition alleges that a child between the ages of twelve and eighteen has committed an offense that would be considered first degree murder under section 565.020, second degree murder under section 565.021, first degree assault under section 565.050, forcible rape under section 566.030 as it existed prior to August 28, 2013, rape in the first degree under section 566.030, forcible sodomy under section 566.060 as it existed prior to August 28, 2013, sodomy in the first degree under section 566.060, first degree robbery under section 569.020 as it existed prior to January 1, 2017,  robbery in the first degree under section 570.023, distribution of drugs under section 195.211 as it existed prior to January 1, 2017, or the manufacturing of a controlled substance under section 579.055, if committed by an adult, or a dangerous felony as defined in section 556.061, or any felony involving the use, assistance, or aid of a deadly weapon, or has committed two or more prior unrelated offenses that would be felonies if committed by an adult, the court shall order a hearing, and may, in its discretion, dismiss the petition or motion to modify and transfer the child to a court of general jurisdiction for prosecution under the general law.

  2.  Upon apprehension and arrest, jurisdiction over the criminal offense allegedly committed by any person between eighteen and twenty-one years of age over whom the juvenile court has retained continuing jurisdiction shall automatically terminate and that offense shall be dealt with in the court of general jurisdiction as provided in section 211.041.

  3.  Knowing and willful age misrepresentation by a juvenile subject shall not affect any action or proceeding which occurs based upon the misrepresentation.  Any evidence obtained during the period of time in which a child misrepresents his or her age may be used against the child and will be subject only to rules of evidence applicable in adult proceedings.

  4.  Written notification of a transfer hearing shall be given to the juvenile and his or her custodian in the same manner as provided in sections 211.101 and 211.111.  Notice of the hearing may be waived by the custodian.  Notice shall contain a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the child is a proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of this chapter, and that if the court finds that the child is not a proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of this chapter, the petition or motion to modify will be dismissed to allow for prosecution of the child under the general law.

  5.  The juvenile officer may consult with the office of prosecuting attorney concerning any offense for which the child could be certified as an adult under this section.  The prosecuting or circuit attorney shall have access to police reports, reports of the juvenile or deputy juvenile officer, statements of witnesses and all other records or reports relating to the offense alleged to have been committed by the child.  The prosecuting or circuit attorney shall have access to the disposition records of the child when the child has been adjudicated pursuant to subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 211.031.  The prosecuting attorney shall not divulge any information regarding the child and the offense until the juvenile court at a judicial hearing has determined that the child is not a proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of this chapter.

  6.  A written report shall be prepared in accordance with this chapter developing fully all available information relevant to the criteria which shall be considered by the court in determining whether the child is a proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of this chapter and whether there are reasonable prospects of rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system.  These criteria shall include but not be limited to:

  (1)  The seriousness of the offense alleged and whether the protection of the community requires transfer to the court of general jurisdiction;

  (2)  Whether the offense alleged involved viciousness, force and violence;

  (3)  Whether the offense alleged was against persons or property with greater weight being given to the offense against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;

  (4)  Whether the offense alleged is a part of a repetitive pattern of offenses which indicates that the child may be beyond rehabilitation under the juvenile code;

  (5)  The record and history of the child, including experience with the juvenile justice system, other courts, supervision, commitments to juvenile institutions and other placements;

  (6)  The sophistication and maturity of the child as determined by consideration of his or her home and environmental situation, emotional condition and pattern of living;

  (7)  The age of the child;

  (8)  The program and facilities available to the juvenile court in considering disposition;

  (9)  Whether or not the child can benefit from the treatment or rehabilitative programs available to the juvenile court; and

  (10)  Racial disparity in certification.

  7.  If the court dismisses the petition to permit the child to be prosecuted under the general law, the court shall enter a dismissal order containing:

  (1)  Findings showing that the court had jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties;

  (2)  Findings showing that the child was represented by counsel;

  (3)  Findings showing that the hearing was held in the presence of the child and his or her counsel; and

  (4)  Findings showing the reasons underlying the court's decision to transfer jurisdiction.

  8.  A copy of the petition or motion to modify and order of the dismissal shall be sent to the prosecuting attorney.

  9.  When a petition or motion to modify has been dismissed thereby permitting a child to be prosecuted under the general law and the prosecution of the child results in a conviction, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over that child is forever terminated, except as provided in subsection 10 of this section, for an act that would be a violation of a state law or municipal ordinance.

  10.  If a petition or motion to modify has been dismissed thereby permitting a child to be prosecuted under the general law and the child is found not guilty by a court of general jurisdiction, the juvenile court shall have jurisdiction over any later offense committed by that child which would be considered a misdemeanor or felony if committed by an adult, subject to the certification provisions of this section.

  11.  If the court does not dismiss the petition or motion to modify to permit the child to be prosecuted under the general law, it shall set a date for the hearing upon the petition as provided in section 211.171.

­­--------

(L. 1957 p. 642 § 211.070, A.L. 1983 S.B. 368, A.L. 1989 H.B. 502, et al., A.L. 1995 H.B. 174, et al., A.L. 2008 H.B. 1550, A.L. 2013 H.B. 215 merged with S.B. 36, A.L. 2018 S.B. 793 merged with S.B. 800, A.L. 2024 S.B. 754, et al., A.L. 2025 S.B. 43)

(1971) Section 211.071 upheld against contention by defendant that "it provides no standards for determining that he was not a proper subject to be dealt with" under the Juvenile Code. State v. Williams (Mo.), 473 S.W.2d 382.

(1973) Section 211.071, RSMo, is not void for vagueness.  Coney v. State (Mo.), 491 S.W.2d 501.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1960–2025 · leading case: State v. Nathan, 404 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Nathan, 404 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. 2013). · cites it 25× “The circuit court dismissed the remaining four counts on which the jury had found Nathan guilty, finding that it had no jurisdiction over these charges because they were outside the scope of the juvenile court’s 2 certification under section 211.071. Nathan appeals his…”
State v. Andrews, 329 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 18× “He challenges Missouri's juvenile-certification statute, § 211.071, RSMo 2000, as violating his right to a jury trial in a criminal prosecution under the Sixth Amendment as applied in Apprendi v.”
In Interest of ADR, 603 S.W.2d 575 (Mo. 1980). · cites it 18× “The Jackson County Juvenile Court, pursuant to § 211.071, RSMo 1969, had entered an order terminating its jurisdiction and allowing Rone's (who was sixteen at the time of his offense) prosecution under the general law.”
Wilkins v. State, 802 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 14× “The evidence included defendant's medical and juvenile records and pursuant to § 211.071, RSMo Supp.1984, the court certified that defendant could be tried as an adult.”
State v. Perry, 954 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “Defendant was a juvenile at the time of the murder but was certified to be tried as an adult pursuant to section 211.071. Defendant was ultimately convicted of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment.”
State v. Williams, 411 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 16× “On the first day of trial, defense counsel filed a motion to declare Section 211.071, 1 the certification statute for juveniles, unconstitutional and to dismiss the charges.”
State v. Wilkins, 736 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. 1987). · cites it 9× “The certification for 16-year-old Heath Wilkins' trial as an adult was obtained on August 15, 1985 as required by Section 211.071, RSMo Supp.1984. The litany of Fifth Amendment rights was read again to defendant at his arraignment in circuit court on October 17, 1985.”
Thomas v. State, 605 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. 1980). · cites it 9× “Appellant argues that § 211.071, RSMo 1969, "is invalid and unconstitutional because it is void for vagueness in that it provides no standard as to whether the juvenile `is not a proper subject' to be dealt with under the provisions of the juvenile code .”
State v. Abbott, 654 S.W.2d 260 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “7 § 211.071, RSMo 1978. Additionally, we assume that after March 5,1981, Abbott was no longer in the custody of the Division of Youth Services, but was instead in jail awaiting trial as an adult.”
State v. Goff, 449 S.W.2d 591 (Mo. 1970). · cites it 16× “The defendant's first contention is that the trial court erred in considering his prior conviction in assessing his punishment because he was fifteen years old at the time of the conviction and the state's evidence fails to show a judicial finding as required by § 211.071, RSMo…”
State v. Larson, 79 S.W.3d 891 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 3× “” Section 211.071, RSMo Supp.1998. Larson does not argue that the court failed to follow the procedures set out in 211.”
State v. Simpson, 836 S.W.2d 75 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “That after having considered all of the relevant factors as set forth in Section 211.071, RSMo. 1984 Supplement, the Court has determined that the above juvenile is not a proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of the juvenile code for the following reasons: A.”
Show all 108 citing cases →
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.071(1) — 1 case
State v. Pierce, 749 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. 1988).
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.071(6) — 4 cases
State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Pierce, 749 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. 1988).
Simpson v. Camper, 743 F. Supp. 1342 (W.D. Mo. 1990).
In the Interest of D.E.G. v. Juv. Officer of Jackson Cnty. (Mo. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.