Opinion ID: 2540910
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review and principles governing the constitutionality of statutes

Text: `Constitutional challenges to the validity of any alleged right or defense asserted by a party to an action must be raised at the earliest opportunity consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure.' State ex rel. Houska v. Dickhaner, 323 S.W.3d 29, 33 (Mo. banc 2010) (internal quotations omitted). A statute is presumed to be constitutional and will not be invalidated unless it clearly and undoubtedly violates some constitutional provision and palpably affronts fundamental law embodied in the constitution. State v. Richard, 298 S.W.3d 529, 531 (Mo. banc 2009). This Court will `resolve all doubt in favor of the act's validity' and may `make every reasonable intendment to sustain the constitutionality of the statute.' Reproductive Health Servs. of Planned Parenthood v. Nixon, 185 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Mo. banc 2006), quoting Westin Crown Plaza Hotel v. King, 664 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Mo. banc 1984). At a motion to suppress hearing, the state bears both the burden of producing evidence and the risk of nonpersuasion to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion to suppress should be overruled. State v. Franklin, 841 S.W.2d 639, 644 (Mo. banc 1992). The Court defers to the trial court's determination of credibility and factual findings, inquiring only whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, and it will be reversed only if clearly erroneous. State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511, 530 (Mo. banc 2003).