court construed virtually identical phraseology in § 195.290 as precluding a newspaper, defending a libel charge, from subpoenaing a prosecutor’s file as to an expunged conviction
How later courts described this case
- court construed virtually identical phraseology in § 195.290 as precluding a newspaper, defending a libel charge, from subpoenaing a prosecutor’s file as to an expunged conviction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RENDLEN, Judge,
concurring in result.
While not in complete agreement with the rationale of the principal opinion, and believing that the broad construction given the statute by the court today should not be extended beyond the particular facts of the case, I nevertheless concur in the result reached. The term “official records” used in § 195.290, RSMo 1969, has today been construed by the court to include the file of the prosecuting attorney who conducted the proceedings resulting in plaintiff’s (defendant in the criminal cause) conviction. I would be strongly disinclined to extend the statute to include expunction or the withholding, as ordered here, of any other records not clearly covered by its language. In this connection, the holding in State v. Kraus, 530 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. banc 1975), should be reemphasized and it be remembered that only the record of drug related crimes are involved. Finally, the statute should not be viewed as establishing a restraint on the testimony of any person with knowledge of any drug related arrest, trial and conviction, the record of which has been expunged under this section.