211.271. Court orders not to affect civil rights — not evidence, exception.

692 words·~3 min read·/mo/chapter-211/211-271

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

211.271. Court orders not to affect civil rights — not evidence, exception. — 1. No adjudication by the juvenile court upon the status of a child shall be deemed a conviction nor shall the adjudication operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily resulting from conviction nor shall the child be found guilty or be deemed a criminal by reason of the adjudication.

2. No child shall be charged with a crime or convicted unless the case is transferred to a court of general jurisdiction as provided in this chapter.

3. After a child is taken into custody as provided in section 211.131 , all admissions, confessions, and statements by the child to the juvenile officer and juvenile court personnel and all evidence given in cases under this chapter, as well as all reports and records of the juvenile court, are not lawful or proper evidence against the child and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever in any proceeding, civil or criminal, other than proceedings under this chapter.

4. The disposition made of a child and the evidence given in the court does not operate to disqualify the child in any future civil or military service application or appointment.

--------

(L. 1957 p. 642 § 211.270, A.L. 1969 p. 353)

(1970)Statement made to juvenile officer by juvenile and considered by juvenile court in deciding whether juvenile should be tried as adult is not lawful or proper evidence against juvenile in any criminal, civil, or other proceeding. State v. Arbeiter (Mo.), 449 S.W.2d 627.

(1971)Refusal by trial court to allow defendant to impeach state's four principal witnesses, adults at time of trial, on the basis that each had previously committed an offense while a juvenile, which would have been a crime if committed by an adult, was upheld. State v. Williams (Mo.), 473 S.W.2d 388.

(1973)Held that Miranda warning must be understood by juvenile to be effectively waived. Juvenile has right to have parental protection at the time of custodial interrogation. Failure to have an attorney or a natural parent, guardian or adult friend present during custodial questioning barred introduction of confession in juvenile proceedings. In re K. W. B. (A.), 500 S.W.2d 275.

(1974)Under subsection 3 of this section, subject to constitutional protections being observed, any statements, admissions or confessions obtained by juvenile officer from juvenile are admissible in proceedings under Ch. 211 to determine "delinquency" which may lead to commitment to a state institution. In Interest of M_________ C________ (A.), 504 S.W.2d 641.

(1974)Held that failure to warn juvenile that he might be tried as an adult in connection with giving of Miranda warning was insufficient when juvenile was in fact tried as an adult and statement made to police was inadmissible. State v. McMillan (Mo.), 514 S.W.2d 528.

(1974)Held that failure to warn a defendant that he may be certified and tried as an adult will bar any admission made to juvenile court personnel and will prohibit use of physical evidence obtained as a result of such admission or statement in a subsequent trial as an adult. State v. Ross (A.), 516 S.W.2d 311.

(1975)Held that Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, does not amount to a general condemnation of juvenile confidentiality provisions and that where testimony of witness was cumulative refusal to allow cross-examination on juvenile record to attack credibility was not a denial of the right of effective cross-examination. State v. Walters (A.), 528 S.W.2d 790.

(1984)Prohibition against the use of a juvenile's records in any civil or criminal proceeding is intended to protect the juvenile, and was held to have no application where the defendant in a wrongful death action sought the use of such records to rebut damage claims based on the death of the juvenile. Smith v. Harold's Supermarket, Inc. (Mo. App.), 685 S.W.2d 859.

(1992)Trial court violated the Eighth Amendment by refusing to give the mitigating-circumstance instruction that defendant requested — "The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity." Missouri statutes prohibit the introduction of a defendant's juvenile record for any purpose. Lashley v. Armontrout, 957 F.2d 1495 (8th Cir.)