From Missouri Digital News: https://mdn.org
MDN Menu

MDN Home

Journalist's Creed

Print

MDN Help

MDN.ORG: Missouri Digital News
MDN Menu

MDN Home

Journalist's Creed

Print

MDN Help

MDN.ORG Mo. Digital News Missouri Digital News MDN.ORG: Mo. Digital News MDN.ORG: Missouri Digital News
Lobbyist Money Help  

Missouri Supreme Court Hears Case On HIV Law

May 6, 1998
By: Tristin Yeager
State Capital Bureau

A man with HIV convicted of risking the infection of another man through unprotected sex before telling him he was HIV positive took his case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Tristin Yeager reports from the state capitol.

Five years after finding out he was HIV positive, Charles Mahan had unprotected sex with another man without telling him about his condition. Mahan was convicted and sentenced to five years. Now his attorney is arguing the law under which he was convicted is unconstitutional.

Assistant Attorney General Jody Joiner argued against Mahan's case and another similar case.

Actuality:joiner.wav
RunTime: :08.677
OutCue: "...applied to them."
Contents: Joiner said that in both cases the defendants were challenging the law on points that didn't apply to their cases.

Mahan's attorney said the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague and it infringes on individual's rights of privacy.


Charles Mahan had unprotected sex with another man before telling him he had HIV and was convicted for the crime. Now he wants the Missouri Supreme Court to declare the law under which he was convicted, unconstitutional. Tristin Yeager reports from the state capitol.

Charles Mahan was present his lawyer told the Missouri Supreme Court that the law under which he was convicted was too vague and went against rights of privacy.

Actuality:mahan.wav
RunTime: :18.634
OutCue: "... under this statute."
Contents: Mahan's lawyer said the use of the word "unconstitutional" makes the laws meaning unclear.

Assistant Attorney General Jody Joiner argued the case against Mahan and said that since the constitutionality issues don't apply to Mahan's case, he cannot ask the Court to question the law.