Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 566
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.025 (2026)

Evidence that defendant has committed other charged and uncharged crimes of a sexual nature involving victims under fourteen admissible to prove propensity to commit crime, when

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

  566.025.  Evidence that defendant has committed other charged and uncharged crimes of a sexual nature involving victims under fourteen admissible to prove propensity to commit crime, when. — In prosecutions pursuant to this chapter or chapter 568 of a sexual nature involving a victim under fourteen years of age, whether or not age is an element of the crime for which the defendant is on trial, evidence that the defendant has committed other charged or uncharged crimes of a sexual nature involving victims under fourteen years of age shall be admissible for the purpose of showing the propensity of the defendant to commit the crime or crimes with which he or she is charged unless the trial court finds that the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the prejudicial effect.

­­--------

(L. 1994 S.B. 693, A.L. 2000 S.B. 757 & 602)

(1998) Section was ruled unconstitutional because it violated Sections 17 and 18(a) of Article I of the Missouri Constitution by allowing uncharged conduct to be introduced for the purpose of showing a propensity to commit a crime.  State v. Burns, 978 S.W.2d 759 (Mo.banc).

(2007) Section as amended in 2000 still violates state constitutional provisions; evidence of prior criminal acts is never admissible for purpose of demonstrating defendant's propensity to commit the crime presently charged.  State v. Ellison, 239 S.W.3d 603 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: State v. Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. 2008). · cites it 58× “Ellison held that section 566.025 [1] , which authorized such evidence, is unconstitutional, on the grounds that evidence of uncharged crimes deprives the defendant of the right to be tried only on the crime charged.”
State v. Burns, 978 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. 1998). · cites it 34× “Appellant challenges the constitutionality of section 566.025, RSMo 1994, under which evidence of appellant’s prior uncharged misconduct was admitted.”
State v. Thigpen, 548 S.W.3d 302 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “The most recent example of such legislation is section 566.025 5 , which became effective in 1995.”
State v. Rucker, 512 S.W.3d 63 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “§ 566.025, RSMo 2000. . In fact, the amendment has increased the admissibility of evidence in relevant cases beyond what § 566.”
State v. Johnson, 161 S.W.3d 920 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “banc 1993), superceded in part by § 566.025, RSMo 1994). “ ‘Proffered evidence will run afoul of th[is] rule .”
State v. Gilyard, 979 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. 1998). · cites it 10× “That is exactly the conclusion reached by the legislature when it enacted section 566.025, RSMo 1994, which provides that in prosecutions for sexual assaults against children under the age of 14, "evidence that the defendant has committed other charged or uncharged crimes…”
State v. Dunson, 979 S.W.2d 237 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “§ 566.025. On its face, this statute appears to be applicable to this case and to justify admission of the evidence about the fire, for the defendant was prosecuted for child endangerment under chapter 568, one of the chapters mentioned in the statute, and on both the former…”
State v. Sexton, 890 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “The State suggests that in the event this cause is remanded for a new trial because of the erroneous admission of evidence of prior sexual misconduct, the only issue on remand should be the applicability of a newly enacted sex crimes statute, Section 566.025. That section…”
State v. Conley, 938 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “The State, however, contends that the evidence was admissible pursuant to § 566.025 RSMo 1994, or was admissible to show a complete and coherent picture of the charged crimes.”
State v. Brown, 912 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 9× “We decline to review *645 for plain error in light of § 566.025, RSMo 1994, which says: In prosecutions under chapter 566 or 568 involving a victim under fourteen years of age, whether or not age is an element of the crime for which the defendant is on trial, evidence that the…”
People v. Donoho, 788 N.E.2d 707 (Ill. 2003). “) Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.025 (1994). The Missouri Supreme Court criticized the statute because it lacked a requirement that other-crimes evidence be relevant to the present case and because its use of the word “shall” reveals that admission of such evidence is mandatory.”
State v. Worrel, 933 S.W.2d 431 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 10× “Worrel contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce out-of-court statements by the victims, by allowing the State to cross-examine him about prior uncharged sex crimes pursuant to § 566.025, RSMo 1994, and by failing to declare a mistrial after the…”
Show all 38 citing cases →
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.