On May 26, 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion affirming the conviction of Shane Smith, 56, of Mayview, Missouri.

This followed oral arguments in front of the Court of Appeals on May 5, 2026. Smith had been found guilty of two counts of statutory sodomy and one count of sexual misconduct involving a child following a trial on December 19, 2024. The trial took place in Saline County after Smith requested a change of venue. He was sentenced to ten years on Count I, fifteen years on Count II to run consecutively and two years on Count III in the Missouri Department of Corrections on March 20, 2025.

The State was represented at the trial and at sentencing by Lafayette County Prosecuting Attorney, Kristen Ellis Hilbrenner. On appeal, the State was represented by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, which is the standard practice on all felony appeals in Missouri.

On appeal, Smith complained that the trial court committed plain error in accepting Smith’s voluntary waiver of a jury trial. While a defendant has a right to a jury trial, he may waive that right in favor of a bench trial. That waiver must come from the defendant and must be voluntary. Although Smith offered a written waiver to the court and agrees that the court questioned him about the waiver on the record, Smith contends the waiver was not specific enough and the court committed plain error by accepting it.

The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, stating that the trial court questioned Smith regarding that waiver and accepted the written waiver signed by Smith in accordance with Missouri law.

The Court stated: “The trial court did not commit error, plain or otherwise, in accepting Smith’s waiver of the right to trial by jury.”

In his second point on appeal, Smith claimed that the trial court committed plain error in admitting testimony from the victim’s counselor. The Court rejected this claim and noted it was not persuaded by Smith’s arguments and that Smith did not establish that the trial court committed error regarding the counselor’s challenged testimony.

In its judgement, the Court of Appeals noted that Smith did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions.

Both points on appeal were denied, and the trial court’s decision was affirmed.