courts – Missouri House of Representatives Newsroom

VIDEO: House Votes to Tell Judges Not to Delay Finalizing Divorces due to Pregnancy

The state House has voted unanimously to tell judges they cannot delay finalization of a divorce based on one party in the marriage being pregnant. The vote came after one bill sponsor shared her own experience with domestic violence, and how she found herself pregnant but unable to divorce her abuser.

Representatives Cecelie Williams (left) and Raychel Proudie (right) speak in a side gallery in the House Chamber after the House voted unanimously to advance their proposal meant to clear the way for pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Missouri Law allows filing for divorce during a pregnancy, but judges typically wait to finalize a divorce until after that party gives birth.

The passage came after one of the proposal’s sponsors shared her own story of having been in an abusive marriage, and learning that she could not divorce her husband while pregnant.

“I stand before you hoping to change that for women like me, who were, and may be, trapped in dangerous situations. This bill is more than just a legal change. It’s a lifeline for women who are forced to stay in marriages because they are pregnant,” Representative Cecelie Williams (R-Dittmer) told her fellow House members. “No woman should be forced to remain in an abusive marriage, especially while pregnant.”

Watch Williams speak about her own experience on the House Floor, in the video below.

Williams and Ferguson Democrat Raychel Proudie sponsored the legislation this year, and Proudie echoed Williams’ sentiment.

“There [is] a myriad of reasons why we should pass this bill, but in the first place the reason we should pass this bill … is that every citizen should have access and a right to every judicial process and proceeding, their medical condition notwithstanding.”

The legislation was first offered during the 2023 legislative session by Representative Ashley Aune (D-Kansas City), who praised Williams for her bravery in sharing her personal story and getting this legislation so far, so early in session.

“It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of courage folks in this body muster up in order to make our colleagues aware of some of the challenges we face. The bravery, the selflessness with which you carry this piece of legislation is so admirable, so thank you so much, lady.”

Legislators, visitors, and staff listened in silence as Rep. Cecelie Williams spoke about her own story of surviving domestic violence, in asking them to approve her bill to allow pregnant women to secure a divorce. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Aune said the proposal had been brought to her by domestic violence advocates, and she viewed it with such issues in mind. Once she filed it, however, she was truck by how many men contacted her to thank her.

“Men who, for example, where serving overseas while their family was back home and infidelity occurred. They returned from serving their country only to learn they couldn’t legally separate from their spouse due to her condition, and that was a side of this piece of legislation that hadn’t occurred to me … this is a bill that helps women, but the more you think of it the more you really understand this is a bill about freedom, not just for women but for men, anyone who’s in a bad situation. Having access to the courts is so important.”

After House voted to send the bill to the Senate, Williams reflected on how hard it has been to speak publicly about what she went through, an experience that included years of physical and verbal abuse, often in front of her young children, before her abuser took his own life just days before their divorce would have become final.

“Ultimately, my abuser couldn’t abuse anyone anymore, he chose to take his life, and I was able to start healing. So I thought, until this bill was filed. The more that I talk about it, it’s a very raw feeling, walking around and people knowing your story, that you’re a domestic abuse survivor,” Williams said.

“After filing this bill and speaking about it, it became very apparent that I have a lot of unhealed wounds, and I need to deal with those, and I’m very thankful for that as well because, what better way to do it than with the support that I have, of our House members. We received bipartisan support. It’s really been incredible and I’m extremely grateful.”

The vote to send House Bills 243 (Williams) and 280 (Proudie) to the Senate was 155-0. It now goes to the Senate, in which two versions of the same language have been filed.

RAP Act would govern when lyrics, other art can be evidence in criminal trials

Some people in Missouri’s prisons are there after a jury considered the lyrics they wrote or listened to when weighing their guilt. One House member thinks courts should have to consider whether lyrics or other artistic expressions are relevant to a case before they are allowed in a trial.

*Representative Phil Christofanelli (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

House Bill 353 would lay out when such expressions could be introduced to a jury and require that a hearing be conducted to see whether they meet that criteria.

The Restoring Artistic Protection (RAP) Act, as it’s being called, is sponsored by Representative Phil Christofanelli (R-St. Peters).

“We want artists to not be afraid to engage in their full scope of expression when they’re creating music in our state,” said Christofanelli. “It’s really a First Amendment issue because we don’t want to have a chilling effect through state action on the expression of artists in our community.”

“Certainly some of the greatest songs out there include references to things that are illegal or criminal and we don’t want to essentially prohibit artists or discourage artists from engaging in that type of expression.”

Christofanelli said many judges are already doing what his bill would require because they recognize that things like lyrics are often used to prejudice a jury.

“[Prosecutors] introduce that they have sung or rapped about unsavory things in the past so obviously they must have engaged in whatever crime they’ve been currently accused of,” explained Christofanelli. “But certainly if it’s the case that they’re actually singing about literal representations of things that they’ve done in the past, well then that would be relevant. I think that as long as we have a gatekeeper to make sure that that sort of evidence doesn’t reach the jury unfairly I think that it will be okay.”

Under HB 353 before song lyrics, literature, visuals, or any other form of art could go before a jury as evidence against a defendant prosecutors would first have to convince a judge that it was relevant to the crime.

“The prosecution must show that the artistic material was intended to be a literal description of the defendant’s activities.”

Supporters say in more than 500 cases in the U.S. have lyrics played a part in criminal trials.

Christofanelli said one of the entities he has worked with in deciding to file HB 353 is Warner Music, which owns labels including Elektra Records, Reprise Records, Warner Records, Parlophone Records, and Atlantic Records.

“This is a bill that they have worked on in other states and I think there’s a federal version as well and really it’s because it’s become a real problem for some of their artists.”

“We want Missouri to be a place where artists come to create because that helps our economy and helps our cultural atmosphere. There’s a huge music production facility going in to Chesterfield which is going to be tens- if not hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity around the music industry right here in the St. Louis area and we certainly want to be a place that’s friendly and welcoming to artists, and the industry this bill is a part of that.”

Lawmaker to continue focus on domestic violence issues

A lawmaker with decades of experience in law enforcement plans to file more legislation meant to help victims of domestic violence in ways he wished he could have during his career.

Representative Lane Roberts (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin) said in his career, including as Joplin’s Police Chief, he was often frustrated at seeing how abusers used the court system to continue to intimidate and persecute victims.

“What you’re looking at is … my efforts to remedy things that I’ve seen go wrong, things that I believe have been wrong, and to do it in a way that doesn’t undermine the intent of a fair and due process,” said Roberts.

“Over the years I found myself dealing with a number of different circumstances wherein I truly thought the right thing to do in protecting the victim, frankly, was not provided for in law. So I wound up having to explain to victims why I couldn’t do the things that the victim and I both knew were in their best interest. I watched abusers and, in some cases, their representatives twist, manipulate, take advantage of loopholes, doing things that I think the law provided for but not by intent,” said Roberts. “It was a result of trying to ensure that we treated both sides of the discussion fairly. Someone who’s been accused of a crime is innocent until they’re proven guilty, so we do need to make that acknowledgement. We do need to make sure that they receive due process. But, if the end result is the other side of that equation is abused or treated unfairly, that doesn’t make any sense. There’s no balance there.”

Jennifer Carter Dochler with the Missouri Coalition against Domestic and Sexual Violence says the issues the bill would address are ones seen time and time again in cases throughout Missouri.

“Individuals who are abusive are very good at finding any loophole in the protections that we’ve helped establish. This bill is absolutely trying to address multiple loopholes that have been identified that prevent the court from doing their best at protecting victims.”

Roberts proposes specifying that when a person receives notice from a court that a hearing will be held on an order of protection against them, that serves as notification of any orders the court issues on the date of that hearing. He said this is because often a person who is the subject of an order of protection will violate it, then say in their defense that they didn’t attend the hearing and therefore didn’t know the order had been put in place. He said this amounts to pleading ignorance, and case law has supported this defense.

“What I’m trying to do is remove the ambiguity. You know you’ve been charged. You’ve been made aware of the hearing. I think the presumption needs to be the person did, in fact, get notified, not accept the presumption that they didn’t,” said Roberts.

Carter Dochler said by the time an order of protection hearing is held, a victim has, “already asked the court for safety, and so let’s try to reduce a burden that we have continued to hear, over the years, creates safety issues.”

Another provision would allow victims to testify in court via video conferencing. Carter Dochler said in addition to victims having to make time to go to court over and over, each time having to incur costs for things like travel and childcare, there are many safety concerns for them when testifying in court. Allowing them to provide testimony over video would be a simple fix.

“Their abusive partner is going to know exactly when they’re going to be there, what time. Although some courts try to put safety precautions in place … there’s still a safety risk for someone parking, walking into the courthouse, having to wait, how they’re going to leave,” said Carter Dochler.

Roberts called the video conferencing language one of the pieces of the bill he’s the most committed to, because he’s seen that victims can often be reluctant to testify.

“It’s difficult to describe, for those of us who’ve never experienced it, what it must be like to be the victim of repeated, and in some cases, vile abuse, to have to sit in the same room with [the person responsible] and have their lawyer pick you apart or have them staring at you with the intent of intimidating you,” said Roberts. “How many people don’t show up to court because they don’t want to experience that? How much fear does that create in the mind of somebody who maybe had it in mind that they were going to go forward and then it comes down to the reality of facing somebody in the same room?”

The bill would also specify that victims and their witnesses don’t have to reveal home or workplace addresses when testifying in court, unless the court deems it necessary.

“In many cases abusers and wrongdoers will continue to do things that are abusive and wrong for the purpose of advancing their interests in court, and that includes intimidating, threatening, or physically harming witnesses and victims,” said Roberts. “What we’re really talking about here is giving them some level of comfort that people won’t know where to find them if they step up and do the right thing.”

A provision the Coalition specifically wanted would clarify that a court can order payment of attorney fees incurred by a victim before, throughout, and after a proceeding. Carter Dochler said because the current statute includes the word, “or,” an attorney successfully argued in one case that the abuser wouldn’t have to cover fees for all of those time periods.

“This is another instance where grammar does matter,” said Carter Dochler. “The intention has always been that somebody could request the respondent to cover reasonable court fees … we’re taking this opportunity to clarify what the intention was.”

Roberts said based on the response he’s gotten from advocates, he already plans to change some of the language he’s prepared. In particular, he expects to amend a provision that would bar prosecutors from offering plea bargains to defendants facing certain levels of domestic violence charges.

“Maybe we overshot on that,” said Roberts.

Other pieces of this bill would require anyone convicted of domestic violence to pay $1,000 to a shelter in the same city or county as the victim; and require that when they are ordered to take a class on domestic violence, they must pay for it.

In the 2021 session Roberts proposed other domestic violence statute changes that became law in June. These allowed for orders of protection to be extended for up to a lifetime; covered pets under orders of protection; and expanded the definition of “stalking” to include the use of technology such as GPS and social media, or the use of third parties.

Roberts said those pieces of legislation drew something of a “fan following” in Missouri, and for good reason.

“Many people understand that domestic violence is a real part of everyday life for some people, and hopefully folks have begun to realize that those of us who’ve never been in those situations really cannot understand how horrible it is to live in constant fear, and in the home that’s supposed to be your haven and your safe place,” said Roberts. “I’ve just seen it for the better part of five decades and the things that we’re talking about here are those kind of individual elements that I feel I can do to maybe remedy some of that.”

Carter Dochler said the Coalition is grateful for Roberts’ focus on these issues.

“Representative Roberts is doing an amazing job listening directly from constituents in his community about the barriers they’re experiencing. He’s also taking his prior law enforcement career and barriers he experienced and he’s trying to address those things, and he’s to be commended,” said Carter Dochler.

Roberts plans to file this legislation on or after December 1, when prefiling of bills for the 2022 session begins.

House votes to require veterans courts in all jurisdictions in Missouri

Every circuit court in the State of Missouri would have to have at least one veterans treatment court in its jurisdiction under a bill approved by the Missouri House.

Representative Dave Griffith (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Treatment courts utilize an intensive program of court supervision, drug or alcohol testing, and rehabilitation to help defendants overcome substance abuse, mental, emotional, or behavioral issues and keep them from re-offending.

Veterans treatment courts specifically focus on those who have served or currently serve in the military. Many of their needs, including drug testing, utilize the Veterans Administration’s services.

Lawmakers said there is one circuit in the state that does not have a treatment court program.

House Bill 547 would require every circuit court in the state to establish a treatment court division. For courts in which resources are not available for a veterans court, it would allow defendants who are veterans to have their cases transferred to any court in the circuit.

The bill is sponsored by Jefferson City representative Dave Griffith (R), who served in the Army as a Green Beret.

“When a soldier, a sailor, a marine, or an airman goes into battle, that experience changes who they are, and many of them come out of that experience and that situation different people. They make decisions they very well would not have made prior to going on the battlefield. Many turn to alcohol or drugs and because of those choices they can find themselves on the wrong side of the law,” said Griffith. “The veterans treatment courts throughout the state will give these men and women an opportunity to clear their names, to get a clean record, and give them a second chance at life, but more importantly it will show them that we have not given up on them.”

Griffith said passing HB 547 would help mitigate the number of suicides among veterans in Missouri.

“#22 stands for the number of veterans committing suicide every day [nationwide]. This bill will show our veterans and military that we do care and we want to give them the second chance that they deserve,” said Griffith.

The bill would specify that veterans who had been in combat would be given preference by courts in determining whether to have their cases handled by a veterans court. That provision was offered by Pleasant Hill Republican Mike Haffner, a retired Naval Officer and decorated combat veteran.

Representative Mike Haffner (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“Let’s face it. Men were never meant to kill men,” said Haffner. “Every individual that goes into combat is changed psychologically. They are never the same again, and the part that’s hard about this is the assimilation when we come back home. For those that haven’t been in combat they don’t understand, coming into a room like this is not the same. We’re forever changed … some can cope and some cannot.”

Some lawmakers expressed concerns about having courts prioritize combat veterans ahead of non-combat veterans, but Haffner maintains that no one who could benefit from veterans courts will be turned away.

“Given the triage priorities that they list [in the bill] I cannot think of a situation where any of the circuit courts, especially here in the State of Missouri, where this is going to be an issue given the number of vets that we have and how few of them are combat vets,” said Haffner.

Griffith thanked his colleagues for supporting the bill and said it is a further effort to honor veterans.

“When I was separated from the service my first sergeant told me not to wear my uniform home, but to wear civilian clothes. As many of us walked through airports either returning home from deployment or separating from the service, we were cursed at, we were spit on, we were called ‘baby killers,’ and the list goes on and on. Today when I look on Facebook and I see posts of soldiers receiving standing ovations in airports when they are making their way to their planes it brings a tear to my eye.” said Griffith. “This bill will further support our veterans and military by giving them another resource to help them get the support they need so very badly.”

HB 547 would give courts until August 28, 2021 to establish a treatment court division. The House voted 149-3 to send the bill to the Senate.

Missouri legislature completes special session, sends two bills to Governor Parson

The Missouri legislature moved quickly to pass two bills that were the subject of a special session called by Governor Mike Parson (R).

Representative Kevin Austin (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Parson called lawmakers back into session to reexamine issues covered in two bills he vetoed. One of those would establish statewide standards for treatment courts, such as drug and veteran courts; the other would allow high school computer science courses to count toward graduation requirements for math, science, or practical arts credits. The House voted on Wednesday to send those bills to the Senate, and today the Senate approved those bills without making any changes to them. That means they go to Parson for his consideration.

Representative Kevin Austin (R-Springfield) sponsored House Bill 2, which deals with treatment courts. Such courts in Missouri provide a court-supervised, comprehensive treatment program as an alternative to jail time. Lawmakers and prosecutors agree the program is not an easy out for a defendant.

Over the years courts have been established in numerous districts in the state but without universal guidelines for how to operate. HB 2 seeks to provide those.

“It allows the expansion of treatment courts to counties that don’t have it but would like to have it. It also allows for the coordinating commission to establish best practices based on scientific research that’s been done on the effectiveness of treatment courts and what works and what doesn’t,” said Austin. “It allows for more data collection as well, it allows for technical assistance from [The Office of State Courts Administrator] to these courts.”

Austin said one of his favorite parts of the bill is a transfer clause, which will allow defendants who are candidates for treatment courts but are in a circuit that doesn’t have them, to be transferred to a circuit which does have them.

“That is not going to result in just dumping from one county to another of these defendants. It has to be agreed to by both the transferring county and the receiving county. It has to be agreed to by the prosecuting attorney as well as the defendant,” said Austin.

Austin said treatment courts save lives and improve the quality of lives, and not just the lives of the defendants that go through them.

“There’s people that interact with that person every day. Maybe it’s their family, maybe it’s their neighbors, maybe it’s the merchants who they might otherwise be shoplifting from, it’s us as taxpayers. It affects all of us in a very positive way. It’s a way that we can restore dignity and return this person to a productive life,” said Austin.

House Bill 3 would let computer science courses count toward math, science, or practical arts credits needed for graduation. Under the bill students could begin in middle school to be prepared for the opportunities they could have in the job market. Its sponsor, Holts Summit Republican Travis Fitzwater, has been working on STEM legislation for years.

Representatives Jeanie Lauer and Travis Fitzwater (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“I’m thrilled it’s done,” Fitzwater said on Wednesday after the House passed his legislation.

“What we need is broadening opportunities and this is doing that for kids … and at the heart of it that’s what I’m trying to accomplish with this bill,” said Fitzwater.

Representative Jeanie Lauer (R-Blue Springs) chaired the House Committee on Workforce Development and worked with Representative Fitzwater on the computer science portion of HB 3. She said it could help move Missouri forward in workforce development.

“We know that from site selectors that are looking for where to place businesses that is the top item that they’re looking for in criteria is what is the workforce pool, and in order for us to be competitive not only within our state but with other states we have to increase the talent that we have, and this is certainly a step toward that,” said Lauer.

Parson announced on August 30 his call for the special session and legislators worked quickly to pass new versions of these bills that addressed the concerns he cited with his vetoes, while spending as little time as possible on the special session. The session’s costs were lessened because it coincided with the constitutionally-mandated veto session.