470 S.W.3d 744
Mo.2015Background
- Dennis Meacham was charged (2014) with criminal nonsupport under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 568.040 for knowingly failing to pay court-ordered child support for ~12 months.
- In 2011 the legislature amended § 568.040: it removed the phrase "without good cause" from the offense element and explicitly made "inability to provide support for good cause" an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance.
- Meacham moved to dismiss, arguing the 2011 amendment unconstitutionally shifted the burden to disprove an element (ability to pay) onto the defendant, violating due process.
- The trial court agreed, dismissed the information, and held §§ 568.040(1), (3), and (4) unconstitutional for creating a mandatory presumption of ability to pay.
- The State appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court (en banc), which reviewed the statute de novo and considered whether the legislature could constitutionally place the burden of proving inability to pay on the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 amendment unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof on an element of the offense | State: statute valid; "good cause" is an affirmative defense and defendants may bear its burden | Meacham: ability to pay is an implied element; removing "without good cause" forces defendant to disprove element | Court: "without good cause" is not an element after 2011; no element burden shifted |
| Whether placing burden to prove "inability to provide support for good cause" on defendant violates due process | State: due process permits defendants to bear burden on affirmative defenses | Meacham: due process requires State to prove culpability including ability to pay | Court: Patterson permits states to require defendants to prove affirmative defenses by preponderance; statute constitutional |
| Whether the statutory culpable mental state requires proof beyond "knowingly" (i.e., intent to punish only recalcitrant parents) | Meacham: liability should require ability to pay plus knowing failure | State: culpable state is "knowingly"; legislature provided affirmative defense for inability | Court: culpable mental state is "knowingly"; legislative scheme permissible |
| Whether precedent (e.g., Hicks) supports Meacham's due process claim | Meacham: cited Hicks suggesting inability to comply may be element in criminal context | State: Hicks deferred to California statute construction and is inapposite | Court: Hicks not controlling; statute explicitly lists inability as an affirmative defense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. banc 2013) (upheld earlier version and discussed overlap between element and affirmative defense)
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) (Due Process does not require State to disprove all affirmative defenses)
- Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988) (addressed civil vs. criminal contempt and statutory construction; not controlling here)
- State v. Strubberg, 616 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. banc 1981) (Missouri precedent assigning burden on production/persuasion for affirmative defenses)