Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.050 (2026)

Evidence in obscenity and child pornography cases

✓ current as of May 2026

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

573.050. Evidence in obscenity and child pornography cases. — 1. In any prosecution under this chapter evidence shall be admissible to show:

(1) What the predominant appeal of the material or performance would be for ordinary adults or minors;

(2) The literary, artistic, political or scientific value of the material or performance;

(3) The degree of public acceptance in this state and in the local community;

(4) The appeal to prurient interest in advertising or other promotion of the material or performance;

(5) The purpose of the author, creator, promoter, furnisher or publisher of the material or performance.

2. Testimony of the author, creator, promoter, furnisher, publisher, or expert testimony, relating to factors entering into the determination of the issues of obscenity or child pornography, shall be admissible.

3. In any prosecution under this chapter, when it becomes necessary to determine whether a person was less than seventeen or eighteen years of age, the court or jury may make this determination by any of the following methods:

(1) Personal inspection of the child;

(2) Inspection of the photograph or motion picture that shows the child engaging in the sexual performance;

(3) Oral testimony by a witness to the sexual performance as to the age of the child based on the child's appearance at the time;

(4) Expert medical testimony based on the appearance of the child engaging in the sexual performance; or

(5) Any other method authorized by law or by the rules of evidence.

4. In any prosecution for promoting child pornography in the first or second degree, no showing is required that the performance or material involved appeals to prurient interest, that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, or that it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as a whole.

--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1985 H.B. 366, et al., A.L. 1987 H.B. 113, et al., A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2012 · leading case: State v. Urban, 798 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Urban, 798 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “Appellant asserts that the trial court wrongfully excluded the testimony of David Urban under section 573.050, RSMo 1986, which provides: 573.”

State v. Dean, 382 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). “” In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that the trial court could decide that issue based on the judge’s examination of the pictures themselves, as permitted by § 573.050. After closing arguments were concluded, the judge examined the exhibits with counsel present and took the…”

St. Louis Cnty. v. B.A.P., Inc., 36 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “In Cooley , the appellate court construed section 573.050, which addresses the admissibility of evidence in obscenity and child pornography 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.