Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.498 (2026)

Annual examination of mental condition, not required, when

✓ current as of May 2026

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

632.498. Annual examination of mental condition, not required, when — annual review by the court — petition for release, hearing, procedures (when director disapproves). — 1. Each person committed pursuant to sections 632.480 to 632.513 shall have a current examination of the person's mental condition made once every year by the director of the department of mental health or designee. The yearly report shall be provided to the court that committed the person pursuant to sections 632.480 to 632.513. The court shall conduct an annual review of the status of the committed person. The court shall not conduct an annual review of a person's status if he or she has been conditionally released pursuant to section 632.505.

2. Nothing contained in sections 632.480 to 632.513 shall prohibit the person from otherwise petitioning the court for release. The director of the department of mental health shall provide the committed person who has not been conditionally released with an annual written notice of the person's right to petition the court for release over the director's objection. The notice shall contain a waiver of rights. The director shall forward the notice and waiver form to the court with the annual report.

3. If the committed person petitions the court for conditional release over the director's objection, the petition shall be served upon the court that committed the person, the prosecuting attorney of the jurisdiction into which the committed person is to be released, the director of the department of mental health, the head of the facility housing the person, and the attorney general.

4. The committed person shall have a right to have an attorney represent the person at the hearing but the person is not entitled to be present at the hearing. If the court at the hearing determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person no longer suffers from a mental abnormality that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if released, then the court shall set a trial on the issue.

5. The trial shall be governed by the following provisions:

(1) The committed person shall be entitled to be present and entitled to the benefit of all constitutional protections that were afforded the person at the initial commitment proceeding;

(2) The attorney general shall represent the state and shall have a right to a jury trial and to have the committed person evaluated by a psychiatrist or psychologist not employed by the department of mental health or the department of corrections. In addition, the person may be examined by a consenting psychiatrist or psychologist of the person's choice at the person's own expense;

(3) The burden of proof at the trial shall be upon the state to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed person's mental abnormality remains such that the person is not safe to be at large and if released is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence. If such determination is made by a jury, the verdict must be unanimous;

(4) If the court or jury finds that the person's mental abnormality remains such that the person is not safe to be at large and if released is likely to engage in acts of sexual violence, the person shall remain in the custody of the department of mental health in a secure facility designated by the director of the department of mental health. If the court or jury finds that the person's mental abnormality has so changed that the person is not likely to commit acts of sexual violence if released, the person shall be conditionally released as provided in section 632.505.

--------

(L. 1998 H.B. 1405, et al. § 7, A.L. 2004 S.B. 1211, A.L. 2006 H.B. 1698, et al., A.L. 2013 H.B. 215 merged with H.B. 374 & 434 merged with S.B. 188)

(2007) Increased burden by sexually violent predator in first step of two-trial discharge procedure to prove propriety of release by preponderance of the evidence is not violation of either due process or equal protection. In re Care and Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: In Re Care & Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Care & Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 68× “Coffman challenges the denial of his petition and also challenges the constitutionality of the 2004 amendment to section 632.498, which sets forth the procedure for determining whether a sexually violent predator is entitled to release.”

Care & Treatment of Schottel v. State, 159 S.W.3d 836 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 47× “Wilbur Schottel appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for release from confinement as a sexually violent predator (SVP) following an initial hearing at which the judge found that he had failed to meet his burden under section 632.498, RSMo 2000, 1 of showing probable…”

State Ex Rel. Schottel v. Harman, 208 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 53× “Wilbur Schottel (“Relator”) seeks discharge from confinement as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) pursuant to section 632.498, RSMo 2000. He asks this Court to prohibit the Respondent from applying section 632.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Norton, 123 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. 2004). · cites it 12× “The State also contends that the annual review process, provided under section 632.498, allowing for discharge balances Mr.”

Care & Treatment of Murrell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 96 (Mo. 2007). · cites it 4× “3d at 175, citing section 632.498. In these reviews, as this Court has noted, the state has the burden of proving that the person's mental abnormality "has not improved and that it is not safe to release" the sexually violent predator.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Van Orden, 271 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2008). · cites it 4× “Section 632.498. The court reviews this report, and even if release is not recommended, the person may file a petition for release with the court at any time.”

Martineau v. State, 242 S.W.3d 456 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Contrary to Martineau’s argument, therefore, “[i]t was incumbent upon the trial court not to make credibility determinations or to weigh and balance [the] expert testimony with the evidence offered by the State, but rather to set the matter for the further hearing required.”

Care & Treatment of Schottel v. State, 121 S.W.3d 337 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “The Department conducted an annual review of Schottel’s status in 2001, as required by Section 632.498. The Department reported several ongoing treatment goals for Schottel and opposed his release from commitment.”

Van Orden v. Schafer, 129 F. Supp. 3d 839 (E.D. Mo. 2015). · cites it 4× “If a petitioner filing for release without the director’s approval survives thé frivolity review, he is then subject to the requirements of § 632.498. Under § 632.498.4, the court first holds a hearing at which" the petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate by a “preponderance…”

In re the Det. of Ambers, 160 Wash. 2d 543 (Wash. 2007). “If the director does not find that the detainee’s condition has changed, the detainee may still petition the court but must make a prima facie showing at the preliminary hearing that he or she is “ ‘safe to be at large and will not engage in acts of sexual violence if discharged.”

In re: Matthew J. King v. State of Missouri, 571 S.W.3d 169 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “On September 5, 2014, King filed a petition for conditional release pursuant to § 632.498, alleging that “he no longer suffers from a mental abnormality that makes him likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if conditionally released.”

Johnson v. Iowa Dist. Court for Story Cnty., 756 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 2008). · cites it 2× “Mo.Rev.Stat. § 632.498(4) (2004). Functioning as a “ ‘gatekeeper’ to ensure that only those who make a legitimate claim can obtain a jury trial,” the district court is permitted to weigh evidence from both parties in order to determine whether the committed person has met his…”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 632.498(4) — 1 case

Johnson v. Iowa Dist. Court for Story Cnty., 756 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 2008). “Mo.Rev.Stat. § 632.498(4) (2004). Functioning as a “ ‘gatekeeper’ to ensure that only those who make a legitimate claim can obtain a jury trial,” the district court is permitted to weigh evidence from both parties in order to determine whether the committed person has met his…”

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.