## Facts

- Travis W. Williams was charged with three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy for sexual acts against a minor.
- The prosecution sought to introduce evidence that Williams had a prior 1996 conviction for first-degree statutory sodomy involving a child.
- The trial court admitted the prior conviction as propensity evidence under Missouri Constitution article I, section 18(c), which permits certain prior sexual-offense evidence to show propensity if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- A jury convicted Williams on all three counts.
- The trial court sentenced Williams as a “predatory sexual offender” to three concurrent life sentences without eligibility for parole for 50 years.
- Williams appealed, arguing that the constitutional amendment authorizing propensity evidence violated due process and that the trial court erred in its application of the required balancing.

## Issues

1. Whether Missouri Constitution article I, section 18(c), which permits admission of prior qualifying sexual offenses to show propensity subject to a probative-value/unfair-prejudice balancing test, violates federal due process on its face.
2. Whether the trial court was required to make an express, on-the-record finding that the prior-offense evidence’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice before admitting it under article I, section 18(c).
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Williams’s prior statutory sodomy conviction because its unfairly prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value in this case.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) affirmed Williams’s convictions and sentences.
- The court held article I, section 18(c) is facially consistent with federal due process because it includes a meaningful balancing safeguard against unfair prejudice.
- The court held article I, section 18(c) does not require an express, on-the-record balancing finding, so long as the record shows a sound basis for the required balancing.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior conviction; the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value.

## Legal Principles

- A state rule permitting admission of prior sexual offenses to prove propensity does not, on its face, violate due process when admission is constrained by a probative-value versus unfair-prejudice balancing test.
- Under Missouri Constitution article I, section 18(c), qualifying prior sexual-offense evidence may be admitted to show propensity if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
- Trial courts need not recite an explicit balancing analysis on the record to admit evidence under article I, section 18(c); appellate review focuses on whether the record reflects a sound basis for the balancing.
- Admission decisions under article I, section 18(c) are reviewed for abuse of discretion; similarity between the prior offense and the charged conduct increases probative value in the propensity analysis.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld a constitutional provision allowing prior child sex offense evidence to prove propensity, ruled that explicit on-the-record balancing findings are not required if the record supports the balancing, and affirmed the admission of Williams’s prior conviction and his resulting convictions and sentences.


State v. Williams, 548 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. 2018) (en banc)