MO: MO Supreme Court sends Boone County sex offender case back to circuit court

Source: 4/4/23

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to send a Boone County woman’s case back to circuit court after she said she should be removed from the sex offender registry.

The 4-3 decision by the Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and sent back the case for further proceedings. 

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Curious that the reporter of this article didn’t summarize the majority opinion, but still found it necessary to summarize the dissent.

Sending the case back will educate everyone involved. Increasingly what is deemed constitutional behavior and what is not deemed constitutional behavior is very much dispute as evidenced by the 4-3 split here. People blow off such dispute as inconsequential to the day to day and the civility of society, but nothing is further from truth. What all these conflicted splits prove is the desperate perceptions of the constitutional is muddied by political idealism and not black and white law.
All evidence of end stage democracy.

It’s unsurprising – though no less disappointing – that the article did not quote the majority opinion, but chose instead to focus on the dissenting opinion (and comment) from Judge Zel. 😒

Last edited 5 months ago by David🔱

I strongly suspect that the reason that the article did not summarize the majority’s opinion is because the authors’ of the article lacked the necessary skill to do so. The article was penned by “KOMU 8 Digital Staff” (no person was brave enough to put their own name forward, it seems). None the less, a summary of the majority opinion would have necessitated that (a) the authors of the article possess a higher degree of literary accumen, and (b) could objectively summarize that opinion without prejudice or bias. The fact that there is not even an attempt at summarizing the majority opinion obviates that these “writers” not only do not possess a four-year degree in journalism from an accreditted university or college, but are likely of the hillbilly MAGA persuasion found in Missouri trailer parks (think Lauren Boebert, MTG, etc.)

Here’s the important part of the Court’s Opinion:

“This Court holds a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the sex offender treatment programs MacColl completed during her probationary period qualified as a program certified by a jurisdiction or the attorney general to entitle her to a reduction in her registration period, which would resolve whether MacColl ever was required to register under state or federal law.”

Hope that’s helpful. 👍🏻