WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2677

Establishes provisions relating to the admissibility of a defendant's creative or artistic expression as evidence

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Michael Johnson

The bill generally bars using a defendant’s artistic expression as evidence in criminal cases, allowing narrow, clearly proven exceptions.

Referred: Emerging Issues(H)
#courts #crimesandpunishment #criminalprocedure #evidence
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2677

Overview

House Bill 2677 (2026) from Missouri would establish the “Restoring Artistic Protection Act of 2026.” The core purpose is to limit the use of a defendant’s creative or artistic expression as evidence in criminal proceedings, with narrowly defined exceptions where such evidence may be admitted.

Main purpose and intent

  • Create a general rule that a defendant’s creative or artistic expression is not admissible against the defendant in a criminal case.
  • Allow admission only under specified conditions if the court finds that the expression meets strict criteria demonstrating relevance and probative value beyond other evidence.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definitions:
    • “Creative or artistic expression” is broad and includes the expression or application of creativity in forms such as music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and related media.
  • General rule (Section 490.750(3)):
    • Except as provided in subsection 4, such expression shall not be admissible as evidence against the defendant in a criminal case.
  • Exception process (Section 490.750(4)):
    • A court may admit the evidence in a hearing conducted in camera if the state proves by clear and convincing evidence: 1) If original expression, the defendant intended a literal meaning rather than figurative/fictional meaning; if derivative, the defendant intended to adopt the literal meaning as their own thought or statement. 2) The expression refers to the specific facts of the crime alleged. 3) The expression is relevant to a disputed issue of fact. 4) The expression has distinct probative value not provided by other admissible evidence.
  • In-court procedures (Section 490.750(5)-(6)):
    • Rulings on admissibility must be on the record with essential findings of fact.
    • If admitted under the exception, the court must redact the expression to limit evidence presented to the jury and provide appropriate limiting instructions.

Who/what is affected

  • Defendants in criminal cases: primary beneficiaries of the general protection against admission of artistic expression.
  • Prosecution: bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the narrow exception applies.
  • Courts: responsible for conducting in-camera hearings, making factual findings, and issuing redactions and limiting instructions if admission occurs.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • This is a newly proposed statute adding section 490.750 to RSMo.
  • Effective procedures require in-camera hearings and written findings of fact for any admitted evidence, along with redaction and jury-limiting instructions.
  • Status: As of the latest action, referred to Emerging Issues (H) on May 15, 2026; prior readings and prefiling occurred in early January 2026.

Notes

  • The bill is described as similar to prior proposals (HB 1040 and HB 2923 in different sessions).
  • The text emphasizes balancing artistic expression rights with the need to address the facts of a crime when such expression is directly linked to case specifics.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.