Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.271 (2026)

Court orders not to affect civil rights

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

211.271. Court orders not to affect civil rights — not evidence, exception. — 1. No adjudication by the juvenile court upon the status of a child shall be deemed a conviction nor shall the adjudication operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily resulting from conviction nor shall the child be found guilty or be deemed a criminal by reason of the adjudication.

2. No child shall be charged with a crime or convicted unless the case is transferred to a court of general jurisdiction as provided in this chapter.

3. After a child is taken into custody as provided in section 211.131, all admissions, confessions, and statements by the child to the juvenile officer and juvenile court personnel and all evidence given in cases under this chapter, as well as all reports and records of the juvenile court, are not lawful or proper evidence against the child and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever in any proceeding, civil or criminal, other than proceedings under this chapter.

4. The disposition made of a child and the evidence given in the court does not operate to disqualify the child in any future civil or military service application or appointment.

--------

(L. 1957 p. 642 § 211.270, A.L. 1969 p. 353)

(1970) Statement made to juvenile officer by juvenile and considered by juvenile court in deciding whether juvenile should be tried as adult is not lawful or proper evidence against juvenile in any criminal, civil, or other proceeding. State v. Arbeiter (Mo.), 449 S.W.2d 627.

(1971) Refusal by trial court to allow defendant to impeach state's four principal witnesses, adults at time of trial, on the basis that each had previously committed an offense while a juvenile, which would have been a crime if committed by an adult, was upheld. State v. Williams (Mo.), 473 S.W.2d 388.

(1973) Held that Miranda warning must be understood by juvenile to be effectively waived. Juvenile has right to have parental protection at the time of custodial interrogation. Failure to have an attorney or a natural parent, guardian or adult friend present during custodial questioning barred introduction of confession in juvenile proceedings. In re K. W. B. (A.), 500 S.W.2d 275.

(1974) Under subsection 3 of this section, subject to constitutional protections being observed, any statements, admissions or confessions obtained by juvenile officer from juvenile are admissible in proceedings under Ch. 211 to determine "delinquency" which may lead to commitment to a state institution. In Interest of M_________ C________ (A.), 504 S.W.2d 641.

(1974) Held that failure to warn juvenile that he might be tried as an adult in connection with giving of Miranda warning was insufficient when juvenile was in fact tried as an adult and statement made to police was inadmissible. State v. McMillan (Mo.), 514 S.W.2d 528.

(1974) Held that failure to warn a defendant that he may be certified and tried as an adult will bar any admission made to juvenile court personnel and will prohibit use of physical evidence obtained as a result of such admission or statement in a subsequent trial as an adult. State v. Ross (A.), 516 S.W.2d 311.

(1975) Held that Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, does not amount to a general condemnation of juvenile confidentiality provisions and that where testimony of witness was cumulative refusal to allow cross-examination on juvenile record to attack credibility was not a denial of the right of effective cross-examination. State v. Walters (A.), 528 S.W.2d 790.

(1984) Prohibition against the use of a juvenile's records in any civil or criminal proceeding is intended to protect the juvenile, and was held to have no application where the defendant in a wrongful death action sought the use of such records to rebut damage claims based on the death of the juvenile. Smith v. Harold's Supermarket, Inc. (Mo. App.), 685 S.W.2d 859.

(1992) Trial court violated the Eighth Amendment by refusing to give the mitigating-circumstance instruction that defendant requested — "The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity." Missouri statutes prohibit the introduction of a defendant's juvenile record for any purpose. Lashley v. Armontrout, 957 F.2d 1495 (8th Cir.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 62 cases, 1959–2017 · leading case: State v. Wright, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Wright, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. 1974). · cites it 33× “, other than to say: "We reject appellant's contention that subsection 3 of § 211.271, by its terms, renders inadmissible statements resulting from police questioning from the moment that a child is taken into custody.”

Smith v. Harold's Supermarket, Inc., 685 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 28× “” The part of the Code in question is subsection (3) of § 211.271 which was amended in 1969 to read in its pertinent part: After a child is taken into custody .”

State v. Prince, 534 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. 2017). · cites it 4× “Prince also argues the Idaho juvenile court records were not "evidence” under section 211.271. However, this issue is not preserved for review, In Prince’s motion in limine presented to the circuit court, he claimed his Idaho juvenile adjudication was inadmissible pursuant to…”

State Ex Rel. Arbeiter v. Reagan, 427 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. 1968). · cites it 18× “No child shall be charged with a crime or convicted unless the case is transferred to a court of general jurisdiction as provided in sections 211.”

State v. Richardson, 495 S.W.2d 435 (Mo. 1973). · cites it 15× “Prior to the amendment in 1969, § 211.271, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., provided as follows: "1.”

State v. Ross, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 31× “Throughout this proceeding, first on a motion to suppress statements immediately before trial and at various intervals during the trial, the defendant Ross objected to the introduction of the two statements, one made on November 2, and one November 10, and objected to the…”

State v. Lashley, 667 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. 1984). · cites it 6× “1982, as follows: The defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity.”

In Interest of ADR, 603 S.W.2d 575 (Mo. 1980). · cites it 7× “Addressing this contention it should first be noted that during trial defendant objected to the use of his confession, raising the terms of § 211.271(3), RSMo 1969, as a bar to its admission and that objection, properly preserved, was presented on appeal and considered by this…”

Delo v. Lashley, 507 U.S. 272 (1993). · cites it 4× “See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.271 (1986). In any event, the judge did not expressly rule on the latter motion.”

In Interest of ADR, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. 1974). · cites it 11× “The single point raised on that appeal is "that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a juvenile confession given by appellant for the reason that said confession was inadmissible in evidence by virtue of § 211.271(3) RSMo 1969 as amended [V.A. M.”

In the Interest of: J.L.H. Juv. Officer v. J.L.H., 488 S.W.3d 689 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “Instead, section 211.271 addresses the effect of juvenile court proceedings on a juvenile’s civil rights in other contexts and cases.”

State v. Jones, 571 S.W.2d 741 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “This purpose has meaning when applied to statements made by a juvenile, but it has no relevance to the present situation involving the taking of fingerprints. Rather, the present situation is like the “line-up” cases in which it has been held that there is no call for the…”

Show all 62 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.271(1) — 1 case

United States v. Njb, a Male Juv., 104 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 1997).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.271(3) — 32 cases

State v. Wright, 515 S.W.2d 421 (Mo. 1974). “, other than to say: "We reject appellant's contention that subsection 3 of § 211.271, by its terms, renders inadmissible statements resulting from police questioning from the moment that a child is taken into custody.”

Smith v. Harold's Supermarket, Inc., 685 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). “” The part of the Code in question is subsection (3) of § 211.271 which was amended in 1969 to read in its pertinent part: After a child is taken into custody .”

In Interest of ADR, 603 S.W.2d 575 (Mo. 1980). “Addressing this contention it should first be noted that during trial defendant objected to the use of his confession, raising the terms of § 211.271(3), RSMo 1969, as a bar to its admission and that objection, properly preserved, was presented on appeal and considered by this…”

State v. Ross, 516 S.W.2d 311 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). “Throughout this proceeding, first on a motion to suppress statements immediately before trial and at various intervals during the trial, the defendant Ross objected to the introduction of the two statements, one made on November 2, and one November 10, and objected to the…”

In Interest of ADR, 515 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. 1974). “The single point raised on that appeal is "that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a juvenile confession given by appellant for the reason that said confession was inadmissible in evidence by virtue of § 211.271(3) RSMo 1969 as amended [V.A. M.”

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.