SJR 81 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change Missouri's sentencing for first-degree sexual trafficking of a child. If approved by voters, it would mandate life imprisonment without parole for this offense, defining "imprisonment for life" as confinement for the offender's natural lifetime. The amendment directly affects individuals convicted of this specific crime by removing any possibility of probation or parole. This measure requires voter approval at the 2026 general election to become part of Missouri's Constitution.
SB 1109 replaces Missouri's existing public defender caseload rules with a new process allowing individual public defenders to request court conferences when caseloads threaten their ability to provide effective legal representation. If approved, the presiding judge must schedule a conference within 30 days and may order specific relief, such as appointing private counsel, modifying release conditions, or placing cases on a waiting list based on urgency. The bill requires the prosecutor and public defender to be notified of the conference and allows a 10-day window for an expedited appeal to higher court. It directly affects individual public defenders and defendants in cases where caseloads create representation challenges, focusing on addressing specific, immediate concerns rather than setting office-wide caseload limits.
HB 2193 creates a legal process for courts to issue emergency "extreme risk orders" restricting gun access when someone poses an immediate risk of harming themselves or others. Law enforcement can request an immediate court order (ex parte) without prior notice if there's an urgent danger, requiring the person to surrender all firearms within 24 hours. A full hearing must occur within 15 days, and if the risk is proven by a preponderance of evidence, a one-year order is issued. This directly affects individuals identified as high-risk by law enforcement, with special provisions for minors under 18, who are transferred to juvenile court.
SJR 76 would change the time limits for victims to file civil lawsuits related to specific sexual offenses. Currently, victims may face strict deadlines to sue, but this bill extends those timeframes for certain cases. The key provision modifies statutes of limitations, allowing more time for individuals to pursue legal action after experiencing sexual misconduct. This directly affects survivors seeking civil remedies for qualifying offenses under the bill's scope. The bill remains pending, with no enacted changes yet.
HB 2414 clarifies and expands prohibited items in correctional facilities, directly affecting prisoners and facility staff. It bans possession of controlled substances (except prescribed), alcohol, forbidden personal items, weapons, and unauthorized electronic devices like cell phones. Violations carry specific penalties: class D felonies for drugs/electronic devices, class B felonies for weapons, and class A misdemeanors for other prohibited items. Facilities must post clear lists of banned items, and individuals convicted of alkaloid offenses (not controlled substances) may qualify for record expungement under specific conditions. The bill focuses on enhancing facility security through defined prohibitions and consistent enforcement.
HB 2176, titled the "Anti-Red Flag Gun Seizure Act," prohibits Missouri state agencies, law enforcement, and political subdivisions from enforcing any "red flag law" (including federal or state orders requiring temporary firearm seizure or confiscation). It bans the use of state or federal funds to enforce such laws and imposes a $50,000 civil penalty for violations. The bill specifically exempts firearm seizures as evidence during criminal investigations. It directly affects Missouri citizens' firearm rights and law enforcement practices by blocking enforcement of red flag laws across state and local agencies.
SB 1309 modifies rules for admitting expert testimony in court. It requires experts to base opinions on reliable data and methods, and mandates that testimony must help the judge or jury understand evidence or resolve facts. The bill applies to most civil cases (like family law or probate) and criminal cases, but specifically prohibits experts from stating opinions about a defendant’s mental state in criminal trials. These changes aim to ensure expert testimony is both relevant and scientifically sound before being presented to a court.
HB 2254 requires Missouri circuit courts to immediately appoint two qualified attorneys for indigent defendants sentenced to death when imposing the sentence. These attorneys must have specific training in death penalty cases, three years of criminal litigation experience, and prior experience handling at least five postconviction motions. The bill prohibits appointed counsel from having represented the defendant at trial or on direct appeal and mandates the state public defender to cover their reasonable compensation and expenses. This law applies to all death penalty cases and postconviction motions challenging such sentences under Missouri’s rules 24.035 or 29.15.
HB 1633 restricts public access to arrest warrant records for certain serious offenses, including Class A/B felonies, dangerous felonies, and crimes against minors under 18. It requires that such records not be available online until the warrant is executed (person arrested) or a prosecutor files a motion showing public safety needs. Exceptions allow immediate access for law enforcement, attorneys, victims, and court personnel. The law also protects officials from liability for following these rules and directs courts to implement technical controls to enforce the changes.
SB 1360 - This act establishes the "Civil Liability for Employers Hiring Ex-Offenders Act" which provides that a cause of action shall not be brought against an employer, general contractor, premises owner, or other third party for hiring an employee or independent contractor who has been convicted of an offense, excluding certain violent and sexual offenses listed in the act. In an action for negligent hiring against an employer, general contractor, premises owner, or other third party for acts of an employee or independent contractor that is based on a theory of liability not covered by this act, the fact that the employee or independent contractor was convicted of a nonviolent, nonsexual offense before the employee or independent contractor's employment or contractual obligation with the employer, general contractor, premises owner, or other third party shall be inadmissible as evidence. This act shall not preclude any existing cause of action for failure of an employer to provide adequate supervision of an employee or independent contractor, except that the conviction of a nonviolent, nonsexual offense may be admissible as evidence in such action if the employer: (1) Knew of the conviction or was grossly negligent in the failure to know of the conviction; and (2) The conviction was directly related to the nature of the employee's or independent contractor's work and the conduct that gave rise to the alleged injury that is basis of the action. The protections of this act provided to an employer, general contractor, premises owner, or third party do not apply in an action concerning: (1) The misuse of funds or property of a person other than the employer, general contractor, premises owner, or third party by an employee or independent contractor, if, on the date the employee or independent contractor was hired, the employee or independent contractor had been convicted of an offense that includes fraud or the misuse of funds or property as an element, and it was foreseeable that the position for which the employee or independent contractor was hired would involve the discharge of a fiduciary responsibility in the management of the funds or property; (2) The misappropriation of funds by an employee or independent contractor if the employee or independent contractor was hired as an attorney and, if on the date of hiring, the employee or independent contractor had been convicted of a crime that includes fraud or the misuse of funds or property as an element; or (3) A violent offense or an improper use of excessive force by an employee or independent contractor hired to serve as a law enforcement officer or security guard. The provisions of this act shall not be interpreted as implying a cause of action exists for negligent hiring of an individual convicted of an offense in situations not covered by this section. This act is identical to SB 443 (2025), SB 1110 (2024), and SB 352 (2023) and is similar to HB 1087 (2025), HB 1969 (2024), HCS/HB 2064 (2024), and HB 720 (2023). KATIE O'BRIEN
