491.230. Power to issue writ of habeas corpus — persons detained in correctional facility shall not attend civil proceeding — exceptions — conditions. — 1. Courts of record, and any judge or justice thereof, shall have power, upon the application of any party to a criminal suit or proceeding, pending in any court of record, to issue a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of bringing before such court any person who may be detained in jail or prison, within the state, for any cause, to be examined as a witness in such suit or proceeding, on behalf of the applicant.
2. No person detained in a correctional facility of the department of corrections shall appear and attend or be caused to appear and attend any civil proceeding, regardless of whether he is a party, except when:
(1) The offender is a respondent in a chapter 211 proceeding to terminate parental rights. In such cases the trial judge may only issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to an offender after the department of corrections has been notified and allowed fifteen days to file a written objection and be granted an opportunity to appear and make an oral presentation in opposition to the offender's appearance on the basis of security considerations and the best interests of the child or children; or
(2) The offender is a party to the civil proceeding and the court finds that the offender will be substantially and irreparably prejudiced by his failure to attend a trial on the merits in the civil proceeding. In such cases the trial judge may issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to an offender only after the department of corrections has been notified and allowed fifteen days to file written objections and been granted an opportunity to appear and make an oral presentation in opposition to the offender's appearance on the basis of security considerations.
Notes of Decisions
Lockhart v. Middleton, 863 S.W.2d 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “Section 491.230, RSMo Supp. 1992 provides: Power to issue writ of habeas corpus— persons detained in correctional facility shall not attend civil proceeding — exception — conditions.”
State ex rel. Kittrell v. Carr, 878 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “It is undisputed that Relator failed to appear at the default hearing because he was incarcerated and his request for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum had been denied by Judge Kramer pursuant to § 491.230 RSMo Cum. Supp.1993. 1 Alternatively, Relator seeks an order…”
State ex rel. Dotson v. Holden, 416 S.W.3d 821 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See § 491.230 RSMo (2000). 4 Neither Respondent nor the State made any effort to set or conduct a probation revocation hearing until nearly a year after the term of probation had expired.”
State ex rel. McCulloch v. Lasky, 867 S.W.2d 697 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “15(h), which was adopted and became effective two years before § 491.230, it is within the motion court’s discretion to determine whether movant may be present at his 29.”
State v. Bizzle, 500 S.W.2d 259 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Although an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum constitutes proper procedure for obtaining the defendant’s presence at the hearing to testify about the alleged jury misconduct (§ 491.230, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.), the application for the writ, which was the only…”
Laws v. O'Brien, 718 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “§ 491.230, RSMo 1978. The purpose of the writ is not to afford prisoners, such as appellant, opportunities to travel about the State making legal arguments on motions pending in civil cases.”
Haun v. Osterman, 48 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Haun believed that because of his incarceration he was prohibited from appearing in court under § 491.230, RSMo. Haun did not appear for trial but the defendant did appear.”
State v. Scott, 933 S.W.2d 884 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
“If he had desired to attend the hearing, he could have asked the court to compel his attendance under § 491.230. The circuit court was not obligated to order, sua sponte, Scott’s appearance.”
John William McNeal v. Sylvia Ruth McNeal (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “Section 491.230 permits a court to refuse to allow a prisoner to attend his own trial in person, but the converse is not true—the statute on its face does not make a discretionary refusal to allow him to appear, as the sole basis to dismiss a case.”
Dennis L. Laramore v. Zachary Jacobsen, 613 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “6 Section 491.230 addresses the attendance at a civil proceeding of a person incarcerated in the Department of Corrections.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.230(2): 1 case
State ex rel. McCulloch v. Lasky, 867 S.W.2d 697 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
“15(h), which was adopted and became effective two years before § 491.230, it is within the motion court’s discretion to determine whether movant may be present at his 29.”
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.