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 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.
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
HB 2186 changes how first-degree murder trials are conducted when the death penalty is an option. It requires a two-stage trial: first to determine guilt, then to decide punishment. If the defendant is found guilty of first-degree murder without a death penalty waiver, the second stage focuses solely on sentencing, with life imprisonment without parole mandated if the court finds intellectual disability, no aggravating circumstances, or sufficient mitigating evidence outweighing aggravation. This bill affects defendants charged with first-degree murder in cases where the death penalty is sought, applying only to offenses committed on or after August 28, 2001.
SB 1160 would repeal existing state laws governing the death penalty. This bill directly affects the state's criminal justice system by removing the legal framework for capital punishment. The bill's key provision is the removal of all statutory provisions related to the death penalty, effectively ending its use as a sentencing option. It is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee for review.
This bill prohibits life without parole sentences for individuals under 20 at the time of their offense, except in cases involving multiple victims, extreme cruelty, or evidence of adult-level planning. It requires courts to consider youth-related factors like rehabilitation potential and maturity when sentencing, and sets a 25-year maximum confinement period for non-exceptional cases. Current inmates under 20 serving life without parole must receive parole reviews within two years of August 28, 2026. Victims and families gain the right to participate in parole hearings and submit input during these proceedings.
HB 1843 removes littering offenses (under section 577.070) from the list of criminal violations that must be reported to Missouri's central criminal history repository. This change directly affects law enforcement agencies, courts, and prosecutors who previously reported littering cases as part of standard criminal record reporting. The bill modifies Section 43.506 to explicitly exclude littering from reportable offenses, aligning with existing exclusions for general traffic violations. The key mechanism is a simple amendment to the list of offenses requiring criminal history reporting, streamlining the process for non-serious violations.
This bill (SB 1170) aims to establish new legal procedures for compensating individuals wrongfully convicted of crimes. However, the provided context does not include specific details about the compensation amounts, eligibility criteria, or the exact process for claiming compensation. Without additional information on the bill's concrete provisions, mechanisms, or affected parties, a substantive summary cannot be generated. The official abstract only states the bill "creates provisions relating to compensation for wrongful convictions" without describing how these provisions would function.
