Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075 (2026)

Statement of child under eighteen or vulnerable person admissible, when

✓ current as of May 2026

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

491.075. Statement of child under eighteen or vulnerable person admissible, when. — 1. A statement made by a child under the age of eighteen, or a vulnerable person, relating to an offense under chapter 565, 566, 568 or 573, performed by another, not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule, is admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings in the courts of this state as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted if:

(1) The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and

(2) (a) The child or vulnerable person testifies at the proceedings; or

(b) The child or vulnerable person is unavailable as a witness; or

(c) The child or vulnerable person is otherwise physically available as a witness but the court finds that the significant emotional or psychological trauma which would result from testifying in the personal presence of the defendant makes the child or vulnerable person unavailable as a witness at the time of the criminal proceeding.

2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section or any provision of law or rule of evidence requiring corroboration of statements, admissions or confessions of the defendant, and notwithstanding any prohibition of hearsay evidence, a statement by a child when under the age of eighteen, or a vulnerable person, who is alleged to be victim of an offense under chapter 565, 566, 568 or 573 is sufficient corroboration of a statement, admission or confession regardless of whether or not the child or vulnerable person is available to testify regarding the offense.

3. A statement may not be admitted under this section unless the prosecuting attorney makes known to the accused or the accused's counsel his or her intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement sufficiently in advance of the proceedings to provide the accused or the accused's counsel with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement.

4. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the admissibility of statements, admissions or confessions otherwise admissible by law.

5. For the purposes of this section, "vulnerable person" shall mean a person who, as a result of an inadequately developed or impaired intelligence or a psychiatric disorder that materially affects ability to function, lacks the mental capacity to consent, or whose developmental level does not exceed that of an ordinary child of seventeen years of age.

--------

(L. 1985 H.B. 366, et al., A.L. 1992 S.B. 638, A.L. 2004 H.B. 1453, A.L. 2008 S.B. 714, et al., A.L. 2012 S.B. 628, A.L. 2025 S.B. 43)

Effective 8-28-26

(2002) Subsection 1 of section does not require child-declarant to be a victim in order to admit his or her hearsay statements. State v. Bass. 81 S.W.3d 595 (Mo.App.W.D.).

(2002) Section does not impose a burden on either party to prove reliability or unreliability, but places burden of production on proponent of hearsay statement. State v. Porras, 84 S.W.3d 153 (Mo.App.W.D.).

(2007) Absence of law enforcement factor in child victim's statements to her mother made them non-testimonial; admission of statements under section does not violate confrontation clause of Sixth Amendment. In re N.D.C., 229 S.W.3d 602 (Mo.banc).

(2009) Section allowing admission of hearsay statements of child victim of sexual offenses is constitutional under the Confrontation Clause. State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo.banc).

(2011) Section allowing hearsay statements of a minor less than fourteen to be admitted as substantive evidence under certain conditions is constitutional. State v. Biggs, 333 S.W.3d 472 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 254 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. 2009). · cites it 37× “On appeal he *240 asserts that section 491.075, RSMo 2000, 1 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him.”

State v. Biggs, 333 S.W.3d 472 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 47× “Section 491.075, RSMo Supp 2006. Pursuant to this statute, the child’s mother, Hancock, Ringgold and Happel testified regarding the boy’s statements concerning his father’s abuse.”

State v. Ragland, 494 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 34× “’s out-of-court statements under Section 491.075; (2) erred in admitting evidence of J.”

State v. Sprinkle, 122 S.W.3d 652 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 30× “Donalin, a forensic interviewer with the Child Protection Center, about the abuse under section 491.075. A pre-trial hearing was held on this motion.”

State v. Justus, 205 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 22× “Samuel Justus challenges his conviction for child molestation in the first degree on the basis that admission of certain hearsay statements of the alleged child victim violated his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witness against him because the child did…”

State v. Bass, 81 S.W.3d 595 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 33× “In Point I, she claims that the trial court erred in admitting at trial, pursuant to § 491.075, the hearsay statements of the victims’ brother, Jerry Bass, eight years old at the time of the statements, because in doing so the court erroneously declared that § 491.”

State v. Hobbs, 106 S.W.3d 498 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 82× “Hobbs claims that the trial court plainly erred in allowing a section 491.075 hearing to proceed in his absence.”

State v. Benwire, 98 S.W.3d 618 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 31× “At a pre-trial § 491.075 hearing, the court determined that out-of-court statements made by the seven-year-old victim could be introduced at trial because they contained sufficient indicia of reliability to qualify for admission under the statute.”

In the Interest of N.J.K. v. Juv. Officer, 139 S.W.3d 250 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 28× “also moved to exclude the out-of-court statements made by the little girl to various witnesses, including Beth Banker, Julie Donelon, Jan Chance, and Heather Mills, on the basis that the hearsay statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness as required…”

State v. Lane, 415 S.W.3d 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 32× “Thereafter, the State gave notice of its intent to use hearsay evidence of a child under the age of twelve years old, and a section 491.075 hearing (“Chapter 491 hearing”) was scheduled and held by the trial court.”

State of Missouri v. Richard L. Evans, 490 S.W.3d 377 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 23× “Prior to trial, the court held a hearing pursuant to Section 491.075, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, 1 and determined that the victim’s out-of-court statements about the incident to others were admissible.”

State v. Wyble, 211 S.W.3d 125 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 46× “Nevertheless, Wyble contends that the trial court plainly erred in allowing testimony under section 491.075 RSMo, because there was insufficient evidence to show that the young victim was unavailable to testify.”

Show all 254 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075(1) — 7 cases

State v. Justus, 205 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. 2006). “Samuel Justus challenges his conviction for child molestation in the first degree on the basis that admission of certain hearsay statements of the alleged child victim violated his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witness against him because the child did…”

State v. Taylor, 735 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

State v. McKee, 856 S.W.2d 685 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

State v. Brown, 953 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

E.G.D. v. S.L.D., 340 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075(2) — 2 cases

E.G.D. v. S.L.D., 340 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Egd v. Sld, 340 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075(2)(b) — 1 case

State v. Gaines, 342 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075(2)(c) — 1 case

State v. Gaines, 342 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075(b) — 1 case

State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. 2009). “On appeal he *240 asserts that section 491.075, RSMo 2000, 1 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him.”

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.