A new trial date has been set for September 2017 in the case of a woman accused of second degree murder in the death of a two-year-old girl in August 2015.

A new trial date has been set for September 2017 in the case of a woman accused of second degree murder in the death of a two-year-old girl in August 2015.
Online court records show that Tearra D. Olson, 21, Carthage, was scheduled to go to trial in January on charges of second degree murder and abuse or neglect of a child in the Aug. 28, 2015 death of Emalata Hoeft, 2, in a home on Missouri Street.
That trial was postponed and the online record was updated on Wednesday to show that, Jasper County Circuit Judge David Mouton set a new trial date of Sept. 5, with the trial scheduled to last four days.
A pretrial motions hearing is set for May 5.

Emalata Hoeft was found dead when Carthage fire, ambulance and police were called to the home at 1915 Missouri St. shortly after 8 a.m. Saturday, Aug. 29, 2015 for a medical call about an unresponsive child.
Medical personnel determined the child was dead and the man and woman in the home, who turned out to be the child's biological father and his fiancé, were questioned by police after they determined the child's death was not from natural causes.
Hoeft's biological father Albert O'Connor, 28, was sentenced last August to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of first degree endangering the welfare of a child.
O'Connor pleaded guilty to leaving the child at home alone, locked in a back bedroom, for almost six hours a day on four days immediately before the child's death, with a cup of water when he and his fiancé, Olson, couldn't find a babysitter while they worked.
A probable cause affidavit filed by Carthage police investigators in the case against Olson said she told officers she struck the girl's head against a hard surface three times when the child wouldn't stop crying and refused to eat dinner at about 6 p.m. Aug., 2015, the day before the child was found dead.
The affidavit said O'Connor was apparently not home when Olson is alleged to have become violent with the child.

Motion to suppress
Olson's attorney, Public Defender Larry Maples filed a motion on Jan. 27, 2017, to suppress the statements Olson gave to police at the time of the child's death, saying the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of her Miranda Right to remain silent.
In the motion, Maples says officers' body cameras showed Olson was questioned at the home, immediately after officers were called to the home, for more than 22 minutes in one recording and for another four minutes in a second recording, without her Miranda Rights being read to her.
The motion states that Olson was never told she was free to leave and was told to remain where she was, and that an officer was asking “guilt seeking questions, not just general information seeking questions.”
The motion also says CPD Detective Jeff Steffen, the supervisor of the case, told officers that “'At some point when we get back to the station we need to do Miranda . . . just when it feels right, don't shut her down.'”
“The defense respectfully submits that Ms. Olson's unwarned statements at the house must be suppressed,” the motion says. “The defense respectfully submits that the expressed instruction not to 'shut her down,' by the timing of the Miranda warning is counter to the fact that Miranda warnings need to be given when the law requires.
Maples's motion says, “it's possible that Miranda warnings were intentionally delayed in order to obtain incriminating statements.”
The motion also details the additional questioning of Olson by officers throughout the day at the police station and back at the scene.
Maples says the first recording of questioning at the station shows the same officer who had questioned Olson at the home advising Olson of her Miranda rights before starting to ask questions.
Maples writes that Olson was taken back to the home between two questioning sessions at the station, but was not reminded of her Miranda rights by officers.
Maples said officers used questions asked of Olson before she was read her rights to elicit the answers they wanted after she was read her rights
In his summary, Maples writes that officers should have informed Olson of her rights at the home because she was in custody when they questioned her, that the warning Olson was given at the police station was “inadequate and misleading, especially for a person of Ms. Olson's mental condition, age and background,” and that the officer that informed her of her rights didn't get a proper response when he asked if she understood them.
“The defense respectfully submits that all subsequent statements were contaminated by and the product of the initial unwarned interrogations and statements, and must be suppressed,” the motion says. “The defense respectfully submits that the length and nature of the interrogations rendered any and all statements involuntary. The defense submits that all of the statements were involuntary and must be suppressed.”