Resident speaks out following plea deal, dropped charge in sexual abuse case 

By Kyle Troutman ktroutman@cassville-democrat.com

A Cassville mother is speaking out about a recently adjudicated criminal case in Barry County, believing her juvenile daughter’s victim rights were violated and hoping to spur action to prevent similar situations in the future.

Josilyne Creason, of Cassville, has submitted letters of concern or complaints to multiple state agencies and legislators on behalf of her daughter, who at the age of 12 disclosed she was allegedly sexually assaulted by the father of her sister.

According to a probable cause statement filed Aug. 24, 2020, by Det. Abby Parsons, with the Barry County Sheriff’s Office, the alleged crime took place between 10 p.m. on June 26, 2020, and 1:30 a.m. on June 27, 2020.

Parsons’ statement said Richard Thompson, born 1986, of Cassville, allegedly committed the offense of first-degree sexual abuse by subjecting the victim to sexual contact by touching the victim inappropriately with his hands while the victim was clothed. Thompson was charged with care of the victim at the time of the incident.

Thompson, represented by Attorney John Lewright, was charged by Barry County Prosecuting Attorney Amy Boxx with first-degree sexual abuse, a Class B felony, and fourth-degree domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor.

A warrant for Thompson’s arrest was served on Aug. 25, 2020, and he was held on a $40,000 cash-only bond until a bond reduction order was issued in associate circuit court by Judge Robert Foulke on Sept. 10, 2020, lowering the amount to $4,000, cash or corporate surety. Thompson posted that bond on Sept. 22, 2020.

The case was bound over to circuit court the next month, then received a change of venue to Stone County on Nov. 1, 2020, in the courtroom of Judge Jack Goodman. Interim Presiding Judge James Bickel presided over a hearing on Feb. 1, 2021, where cause was set for a jury trial. On Feb. 4, 2021, the new presiding judge, David Cole, took over the case, and a jury trial was scheduled for July 21, 2021. 

In June 2021, a recusal by Cole and judicial transfer request assigned Judge Alan Blankenship to the case. 

As the initial jury trial date approached, multiple continuances were filed, and a Chapter 491 hearing, typically regarding the admissibility of a child victim’s statements as substantive evidence, was scheduled for Dec. 2, 2021, and continued to Jan. 5, 2022. At an appearance on March 7, 2022, the case was set for a hearing on April 20, but the year is not listed on Casenet.

Filings then jump to March 2023, when a continuance was filed, and the next hearing was reset to June 21, 2023. No action was taken on the case from the Chapter 491 Order on July 21, 2023, to a hearing on July 21, 2024. 

On Nov. 7, 2024, a jury trial was scheduled for Aug. 25, 2025. No action on the case was taken from November 2024 until June 2025, when Boxx filed two motions in limine, which ask the judge to rule on the admissibility of certain evidence. On July 24, a pre-trial conference was scheduled for Aug. 13.

At that pre-trial conference, Thompson pleaded guilty to the sole misdemeanor charge, and the felony charge was dropped. He was also sentenced at that hearing to a $1,000 fine and court costs, and the $4,000 in bond money was refunded two days later.

Boxx said the case originating during the COVID-19 pandemic restricted court appearances, and when court was being held, it was limited.

“That continued for over a year,” she said. “The case had a total of five judges assigned to it for a variety of reasons. At one point, an evidentiary hearing was held and taken under assignment by the court. No ruling was made on that motion by the court for 19 months. 

“When that order was finally entered, no new court date was set by the judge for one year. I don’t know why; I’m not the judge. All these events led to this particular case taking a lengthy amount of time to go through the court system.”

Regarding plea offers, Boxx said they are made based on the quality of evidence available, and when it comes to sex crimes, there are typically two types of cases.

“One version is no more than a he said/she said case, with the only evidence being the statement of the victim that the event happened and the defendant saying it did not occur. Juries will not convict an individual based solely upon that kind of evidence. Juries are given very specific instructions to follow during a trial, without regard to public opinion on social media. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in our system. Simply having a victim say something happened, with no physical evidence to substantiate it, typically does not rise to that level of proof in the minds of jurors. 

“The other version of sex cases have some form of physical evidence that is collected by law enforcement and submitted to the Missouri Highway Patrol State Crime Lab for analysis. We can expect to receive the results from them in no less than two years. That’s right — years. The state of Missouri has contracted with a lab in Virginia that actually performs the testing. I have no idea why, nor why this takes so long, but it’s very frustrating. We then look at the sufficiency of that evidence in order to determine how best to proceed with charges. [Thompson’s case] was of the first variety, without any physical evidence.”

Creason said she was not made aware of any plea deal being offered, nor was her daughter given the opportunity to read a victim impact statement in court.

“[I feel] the justice system has failed my daughter in the most devastating way,” she said in her letter of concern. “My purpose in sending this letter is not only to seek justice for her, but also to prevent another brave child who comes forward from being silenced, dismissed and betrayed by the very system that is supposed to protect them.”

Creason said her family endured delay after delay in the case, and she reached out to Boxx’s office multiple times requesting communication or updates.

“Despite my persistence, I never once received a phone call or a face-to-face meeting with Prosecutor Amy Boxx,” she said. “Court dates came and went, and at one point, the Prosecutor’s Office even neglected to schedule a court date at all. Eventually, the case was moved to Stone County, only further prolonging my daughter’s wait for justice.”

Creason said in July 2025, she was contacted by Barry County Assistant Prosecutor John Young, with whom she met twice and said she was told the case would move forward.

“He claimed he wanted to get to know Grace and hear what she hoped would happen,” Creason said in her letter. “At the time, I felt some relief — that finally, after years of silence, the prosecutor’s office would hear her voice. But, that relief was short-lived. The very next day, we were informed of a plea deal: Richard Thompson would face only a Class A Misdemeanor of Domestic Assault in the Fourth Degree and a $1,000 fine. 

“After years of my daughter suffering in silence, years of waiting for her day in court, this is the ‘justice’ she received. Worse still, Richard began showing this plea agreement publicly, as though it cleared his name.”

Creason said when she confronted Young about the decision, she was told too much time had passed since the incident and the prosecution did not believe a trial was winnable. 

Boxx said the victim’s family met with the prosecutor assigned to the case, Young, multiple times prior to the pre-trial conference.

“And, I believe [they] were told of the evidentiary problems and offer,” she said. “I was not, myself, present for those conversations.”

Creason was also upset that her daughter had disclosed other instances of abuse prior to the one described in the probable cause statement, and those incidents could not be tried. No other probable cause statements were submitted to the prosecutor’s office for those alleged incidents.

“Now, [as an older teenager], she has been able to clearly share those details in a victim impact statement and a second forensic interview,” Creason said. “Even with this powerful testimony, the Prosecutor’s Office chose to move forward with a plea deal without ever informing us or giving Grace the chance to speak in court.”

Creason said what has encouraged her to speak out on her daughter’s behalf is the absence of her daughter’s opportunity to make that statement.

“The second most heartbreaking part of all of this is that [my daughter] was stripped of her voice,” Creason said. “She asked to deliver her victim impact statement. She asked to be heard. She never got that opportunity. My daughter, who bravely disclosed years of abuse, who endured waiting half a decade for trial, was not only failed by the justice system — she was silenced by it.

“This is unacceptable. My daughter deserved justice, not a deal that reduced years of sexual abuse to a misdemeanor and a fine. No family should ever endure what we have endured — the delays, the lack of communication, the neglect, and ultimately, the erasure of a victim’s voice.”

Regarding an impact statement being delivered in court, Boxx said there are systems in place intended to facilitate it.

“Victim impact statement forms are sent out to the victim or family of, when the case is initially filed, assuming we have been given accurate contact information by law enforcement,” she said. “Victims are made aware of court dates, by our office and through Missouri Casenet. For the last few years, that system has had the added feature of allowing individuals to sign up for notifications on cases of their choosing so notices of changes in court dates are instantly sent to them. A system specifically for victim notification is also available and this office signed up the family in this case to receive those notifications. Court is generally open to the public and it is the victim’s choice whether to be present for any court appearances prior to trial.

“I myself was not present for the pre-trial hearing in this case, as it was assigned to another prosecutor in the office. It is my understanding the victim did not attend that hearing. Unfortunately, we don’t always know when a defendant intends to enter a guilty plea. That could theoretically happen at any court appearance.” 

In her letter, Creason requested a review of the case, the Barry County Prosecutor’s Office, and how child victims are treated in Missouri’s justice system.

“If justice could be denied to my daughter so easily, it can and will happen again to another child unless change occurs,” she said.

Boxx said when it comes to prosecutions, her job requires assessment of available evidence, and full satisfaction in an outcome among all parties is rare.

“Whether I’m satisfied with the outcome of a particular case is irrelevant,” she said. “This job requires the assessment of available, admissible evidence without emotion coming into play. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a resolved case where the various players involved were fully satisfied with the outcome. Unfortunately, that simply isn’t the nature of the legal system.”

Creason included with her letter a transcript of a phone call with Young, her daughter’s victim impact statement, and relevant documents. She then mailed the information in September to the Office of Chief Disciplinary, Missouri Department of Public Safety, Missouri Prosecutor’s Office, State Rep. Scott Cupps, R-Shell Knob, and State Rep. Cecelie Williams, R-Hermann.

“Please contact me at your earliest convenience,” she said. “I will not stop advocating for my daughter until her voice — and the voices of all child victims — are truly heard and valued.”

Williams said on Sept. 11 she had not received a complaint. 

Cupps said he has no official comment on the case specifically, but he has received the complaint and is engaged in the issue.

The Department of Public Safety said on Sept. 10 its Crime Victims Services Unit did not have a record of a complaint form or application from Creason. A subsequent request if the complaint was received did not receive a response. The Cassville Democrat did not attempt to confirm receipt of the complaint with the Missouri Prosecutor’s Office.

The Chief Disciplinary Counsel cannot confirm or deny the existence of complaints. According to Supreme Court Rule 5.31, any attorney discipline case remains confidential until there is a determination that there is probable cause to proceed, information is filed, and the attorney files a response pleading.

If an attorney discipline case is filed, along with a responsive pleading, the case will then be listed among pending cases on the website of the legal ethics counsel.

Thompson has another felony case pending in Barry County Circuit Court, charged on Sept. 21, 2023, with third-degree assault – special victim, resisting arrest, DWI – aggravated, and misdemeanor driving while revoked, careless, and imprudent driving and no insurance. Those charges stem from a Sept. 20, 2023, incident where the patrol responded to an unknown injury crash on Farm Road 2236 in Barry County. Authorities allegedly detected alcohol on the scene of a wrecked pickup, which Thompson allegedly admitted to driving. 

Arrested by the Patrol for DWI, Thompson allegedly kicked the trooper multiple times, kneed the trooper in the head and attempted to headbutt the trooper while being put in a patrol vehicle. He also allegedly kicked other troopers, kicked two dents in the vehicle and attempted to kick out the rear glass. At that time, according to the probable cause statement, Thompson had three prior driving while intoxicated convictions and three convictions for driving while revoked.

He was arrested on Sept. 22, 2023, on a $15,000 cash-only bond, and a change in bond was denied on Sept. 28, 2023. On Oct. 19, 2023, Thomson was released on his own recognizance with the conditions that he not violate any laws, consume drugs or alcohol, or have contact with the victims (Patrol troopers in this case).

The case was bound over to circuit court and initially set for jury trial on Jan. 14, 2025. That was stricken, and a plea hearing was scheduled for May 7, then to June 4, where another request for jury trial was filed and ordered for Oct. 15-17, with a pre-trial on Sept. 4. 

On Sept. 10, Attorney Michael Riehn, representing Thompson in the case, filed a motion of withdrawal of counsel, on the ground that the attorney-client relationship and communication had broken down.

Judge Cole denied the motion, and the case is set for pre-trial on Oct. 8 and the jury trial starting Oct. 15. Boxx has filed two motions in limine since then, one of which specifically mentions statements on bodycam.

Thompson also pleaded guilty on Aug. 22, 2024, to misdemeanor second-degree property damage, stemming from the damage to a Barry County Sheriff’s Office vehicle during his arrest by the Patrol on Sept. 20, 2023. On Aug. 8, 2022, he was sentenced to two years of probation and court costs in lieu of 365 days in jail.

Finally, Thompson pleaded guilty on April 4, 2023, to non-payment of child support for 12 months and was sentenced to five years of probation. He was ordered to pay $300 per month beginning in April 2023, and he failed to make payments in 11 months during 2023 and 2024.

An order to suspend probation was issued on Jan. 8, 2025, and a violation hearing was scheduled in February for April 8. That hearing was cancelled, with Thompson’s probation reinstated.