How Evidence Rules Affect Your Missouri Personal Injury Case

You might have the strongest case in the world — a clear-fault accident, devastating injuries, sympathetic facts — but none of it matters if the evidence proving it cannot get past the judge. Missouri's rules of evidence act as a filter between the raw facts of your case and what the jury actually sees and hears. Understanding how that filter works explains why some cases with great facts produce disappointing results and why experienced attorneys obsess over evidentiary foundations.

Why Evidence Rules Exist

Evidence rules serve a deceptively simple purpose: ensuring that the jury decides the case based on reliable, relevant information rather than speculation, prejudice, or unreliable hearsay. The rules protect both sides from unfair surprise and prevent the trial from being overwhelmed by tangential material.

Missouri follows its own statutory evidence framework rather than adopting the Federal Rules of Evidence wholesale, though many principles overlap. Chapter 491 of the Missouri Revised Statutes governs witnesses and evidence, and Missouri Supreme Court Rules 56 through 76 address trial procedure.

Relevance: The First Gate

Every piece of evidence must clear the relevance threshold. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without that evidence.

In a car accident case, the following are clearly relevant: the police report, photographs of vehicle damage, medical records documenting your injuries, and testimony from eyewitnesses. Less obvious — but still relevant — might be the defendant's cell phone records showing they were texting at the time of the collision, or weather data confirming it was raining when the accident occurred.

Relevance is a low bar. But clearing it is only the beginning.

Hearsay: The Most Common Exclusion

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what the statement asserts. It is the most frequently litigated evidence issue in Missouri courts and the rule most often misunderstood by non-lawyers.

If a witness testifies, "The bystander told me the light was red," that statement is hearsay if offered to prove the light was actually red. The bystander made the statement outside of court and is not present to be cross-examined about it.

Why does this matter? Because cross-examination is considered essential to testing the reliability of testimony. If the bystander is not in court, the opposing attorney cannot ask follow-up questions, challenge the bystander's perception, or expose potential bias.

Key Hearsay Exceptions in Personal Injury Cases

Missouri recognizes numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule — situations where out-of-court statements are considered sufficiently reliable to be admitted:

Excited utterances. Statements made under the stress of a startling event — "Oh my God, he ran the red light!" — are admissible because the excitement is thought to override the capacity for fabrication.

Statements for medical diagnosis. What you tell your doctor about your symptoms and how the injury occurred is admissible because patients have a strong motivation to be truthful with their healthcare providers. This is why the statements you make in the emergency room matter so much.

Business records. Medical records, employment records, and billing records are admissible if they were made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the event, by someone with knowledge. This exception is the foundation for admitting the documentary evidence that supports most personal injury claims.

Prior inconsistent statements. If a witness testified one way at a deposition and says something different at trial, the deposition testimony can be introduced — not necessarily to prove the truth of the prior statement, but to impeach the witness's credibility.

Expert Testimony Standards

Expert witnesses in Missouri — doctors, economists, accident reconstruction specialists — must satisfy reliability standards before the jury hears their opinions. Missouri courts evaluate whether the expert's testimony is based on sufficient facts, relies on reliable principles and methods, and applies those methods reliably to the case at hand.

This gatekeeping function matters enormously. A defense medical examiner who opines that your injuries are pre-existing based on an incomplete record review may face exclusion. A plaintiff's economist whose salary projections rely on unrealistic assumptions may be challenged.

The practical impact: if your expert is excluded, the evidence they would have presented — the damages calculation, the medical causation opinion, the accident reconstruction — disappears from your case. Conversely, if the defense expert is excluded, a significant portion of their defense collapses.

Medical Records as Evidence

Medical records are the backbone of every personal injury case, and understanding how they function as evidence is critical.

Admissibility. Medical records are typically admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The treating physician or a records custodian can authenticate them.

What they contain matters. Doctors do not write medical records for lawyers — they write them for clinical purposes. But every notation becomes potential evidence. A doctor who writes "patient reports pain" creates a weaker record than one who writes "patient demonstrates limited range of motion, guarding in the left shoulder, consistent with rotator cuff tear visible on MRI."

Gaps and inconsistencies. If your medical records contain gaps — periods without treatment, missed appointments, or inconsistent symptom reports — the defense will highlight those gaps. Records that consistently document your symptoms, treatment compliance, and functional limitations create a much stronger evidentiary foundation.

Photographs and Video Evidence

Visual evidence is powerfully persuasive, but it must satisfy foundational requirements.

Authentication. Someone must testify that the photograph or video accurately represents what it purports to show. For accident scene photographs, this typically means the person who took the photo testifies that it fairly and accurately depicts the scene as they observed it.

Surveillance footage. Insurance companies frequently conduct surveillance on personal injury plaintiffs. This footage is admissible if properly authenticated and relevant. Video of you carrying groceries can be devastating if you testified that you cannot lift anything heavier than five pounds.

Social media. Your social media posts, photographs, and check-ins are discoverable and admissible. A photograph of you at a concert is relevant if you testified that your injuries prevent you from attending public events. Courts have consistently held that social media content, even from private accounts, is discoverable in litigation.

Demonstrative Evidence

Demonstrative evidence — models, diagrams, animations, charts — helps the jury understand complex information. A spinal model showing a herniated disc. An animation recreating the collision. A chart plotting your medical expenses over time.

Demonstrative evidence is not itself proof of anything — it is a visual aid. But its impact on jury comprehension and persuasion is significant. Juries remember what they see far more effectively than what they hear.

Character Evidence and Prior Conduct

Missouri generally prohibits character evidence — you cannot prove that the defendant is a careless person by showing they have caused other accidents. This prohibition cuts both ways: the defense generally cannot introduce evidence of your prior bad acts to suggest you are dishonest or careless.

There are exceptions. If the defendant has a pattern of the same specific conduct — for example, a trucking company that repeatedly violated hours-of-service regulations — evidence of prior similar conduct may be admissible to show notice, intent, or absence of mistake.

Practical Implications for Your Case

Document everything contemporaneously. Notes, photographs, and records created at the time of the event are more reliable — and more admissible — than reconstructed accounts.

Be consistent. Every statement you make — to doctors, insurers, attorneys, friends — is potentially discoverable. Consistency across all of these statements strengthens your case. Inconsistency undermines it.

Preserve evidence. Missouri courts can impose sanctions for destroying relevant evidence. Keep the damaged vehicle, preserve your cell phone, save your clothing. Your attorney can advise you on what to preserve and how.

Understand that not everything comes in. Your attorney makes strategic decisions about what evidence to offer and how to lay the foundation for its admission. Trust the process and provide your attorney with everything — they will determine what the rules allow.

FAQ

Can text messages be used as evidence?

Yes. Text messages are admissible if they are relevant and properly authenticated. They may be admitted as admissions of a party-opponent, as present sense impressions, or as evidence of the declarant's state of mind. The key challenge is authentication — proving the messages are what they purport to be.

Can the jury see my medical bills?

Medical bills are typically admissible as business records. However, Missouri law distinguishes between the amount billed and the amount actually paid. Recent legal developments have addressed whether the jury sees the full billed amount or the reduced amount accepted by your healthcare providers.

What if important evidence was destroyed?

If evidence was destroyed intentionally or through negligence after a party knew or should have known it would be relevant to litigation, the court may instruct the jury that it can infer the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the party who destroyed it. This is called a spoliation instruction.

Can I record conversations to use as evidence?

Missouri is a one-party consent state for recording conversations. This means you can record a conversation you are participating in without the other party's knowledge or consent. However, recording a conversation between two other people without either party's consent is illegal.

What happens if the judge excludes critical evidence?

If the judge excludes evidence you believe is important, your attorney can make an offer of proof — presenting the evidence outside the jury's presence so the appellate court can review the ruling if necessary. Evidentiary rulings are a common basis for appeal.

For case referrals or co-counsel inquiries, contact Joseph Ott at joe@ott.law or (314) 794-6900.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. Contact OTT Law at (314) 794-6900 for a free consultation specific to your situation.