Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.495 (2026)

Unanimous verdict required

✓ current as of May 2026

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

632.495. Unanimous verdict required — offender committed to custody of department of mental health, when — contracting with county jails, when — release, when — mistrial procedures. — 1. The court or jury shall determine whether, by clear and convincing evidence, the person is a sexually violent predator. If such determination that the person is a sexually violent predator is made by a jury, such determination shall be by unanimous verdict of such jury. Any determination as to whether a person is a sexually violent predator may be appealed.

2. If the court or jury determines that the person is a sexually violent predator, the person shall be committed to the custody of the director of the department of mental health for control, care and treatment until such time as the person's mental abnormality has so changed that the person is safe to be at large. Such control, care and treatment shall be provided by the department of mental health.

3. At all times, persons ordered to the department of mental health after a determination by the court that such persons may meet the definition of a sexually violent predator, persons ordered to the department of mental health after a finding of probable cause under section 632.489, and persons committed for control, care and treatment by the department of mental health pursuant to sections 632.480 to 632.513 shall be kept in a secure facility designated by the director of the department of mental health and such persons shall be segregated at all times from any other patient under the supervision of the director of the department of mental health. The department of mental health shall not place or house a person ordered to the department of mental health after a determination by the court that such person may meet the definition of a sexually violent predator, a person ordered to the department of mental health after a finding of probable cause under section 632.489, or a person committed for control, care, and treatment by the department of mental health, pursuant to sections 632.480 to 632.513, with other mental health patients. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a person who has been conditionally released under section 632.505.

4. The department of mental health is authorized to enter into an interagency agreement with the department of corrections for the confinement of such persons. Such persons who are in the confinement of the department of corrections pursuant to an interagency agreement shall be housed and managed separately from offenders in the custody of the department of corrections, and except for occasional instances of supervised incidental contact, shall be segregated from such offenders.

5. The department of mental health is authorized to enter into a contract agreement with one or more county jails in Missouri for the confinement of persons ordered to the department of mental health after a determination by the court that such persons may meet the definition of a sexually violent predator or for the confinement of persons ordered to the department of mental health after a finding of probable cause under section 632.489. Such persons who are in the confinement of a county jail pursuant to a contract agreement shall be housed and managed separately from offenders in the custody of the county jail, and except for occasional instances of supervised incidental contact, shall be segregated from such offenders.

6. If the court or jury is not satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a sexually violent predator, the court shall direct the person's release.

7. Upon a mistrial, the court shall direct that the person be held at an appropriate secure facility, including, but not limited to, a county jail, until another trial is conducted. If the person is ordered to the department of mental health, the director of the department of mental health shall determine the appropriate secure facility to house the person. Any subsequent trial following a mistrial shall be held within ninety days of the previous trial, unless such subsequent trial is continued as provided in section 632.492.

--------

(L. 1998 H.B. 1405, et al. § 6, A.L. 1999 H.B. 852, A.L. 2001 S.B. 267, A.L. 2006 H.B. 1698, et al., A.L. 2009 H.B. 826 merged with S.B. 435)

(2008) Section imposing clear and convincing evidence burden of proof for civil commitment of sexually violent predators is constitutional under due process principles. In re Van Orden, 271 S.W.3d 579 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: In Re the Care & Treatment of Van Orden, 271 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re the Care & Treatment of Van Orden, 271 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2008). · cites it 48× “[1] The court, in the case of Wheeler, and the jury, in the case of Van Orden, found that they met the definition of a "sexually violent predator" by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to section 632.495, and judgment was entered ordering their commitment.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Norton, 123 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. 2004). · cites it 24× “492); the right to require the AG to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspected predator is a sexually violent predator (section 632.495); and the *175 right to have such determination made by unanimous verdict (section 632.”

Care & Treatment of Murrell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 96 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 10× “Section 632.495, RSMo Supp.1999. As a result, "[appellate] review of the sufficiency of the evidence applies the same standard of review as in criminal cases.”

Care & Treatment of Barlow v. State, 114 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 13× “Barlow argues that the only right to appeal created in the SVP Act is contained in section 632.495, RSMo 2000, which provides: The court or jury shall determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the person is a sexually violent predator.”

Care & Treatment of Barlow v. State, 250 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “The court did not try the case within ninety days after the mistrial, and Donaldson filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with section 632.495, 8 which provides that “[a]ny subsequent trial following a mistrial shall be held within ninety days of the previous trial,…”

Brasch v. State, 332 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 8× “James Brasch appeals a judgment based on a jury verdict finding him to be a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to § 632.495, RSMo Supp.2009. 1 He claims that this statute as applied to him violates his due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the…”

Care & Treatment of Bernat v. State, 194 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 8× “Because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, as required by section 632.495, the trial court declared a mistrial.”

In Re Care & Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 4× “The state urges that this result is correct because section 632.495 provides that involuntary commitment shall continue until Coffman's "mental abnormality has so changed that [he] is safe to be at large.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Donaldson, 214 S.W.3d 331 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 4× “Donaldson filed a motion thereafter to dismiss, alleging that section 632.495 4 required retrial within 90 days.”

Care & Treatment of Morgan v. State, 176 S.W.3d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “In Point I, he claims that the probate court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict, at the close of the State’s and all the evidence, for the State’s failure to make a submissible case for his commitment as a SVP, pursuant to § 632.495, because the State failed…”

State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Kinder, 129 S.W.3d 5 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 632.495, RSMo Cum. Supp.2001. The provision for treatment expresses the legislative intent “that treatment, if possible, is at least an ancillary goal of the Act, which usually satisfies any test for determining that the Act is not punitive.”

Fogle v. State, 295 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “020, which provides in relevant part: Any party to a suit aggrieved «by any judgment of any trial court in any civil cause from which an appeal is not prohibited by the constitution, nor clearly limited in special statutory proceedings, may take his or her appeal to a court…”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.495(1) — 1 case

In Re the Care & Treatment of Van Orden, 271 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2008). “[1] The court, in the case of Wheeler, and the jury, in the case of Van Orden, found that they met the definition of a "sexually violent predator" by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to section 632.495, and judgment was entered ordering their commitment.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.495(2) — 6 cases

In re Mitchell, 544 S.W.3d 250 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Karsjens v. Jesson, 6 F. Supp. 3d 916 (D. Minnesota 2014).

In the Matter of the Care & Treatment of Gregory Parr, A/K/A Gregory A. Parr v. State of Missouri, 482 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Kriz v. Roy (D. Neb. 2020).

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.