Case summaries for Jan. 10-16, 2025

Attorneys | Contract | Criminal | Post-conviction

Attorneys

Disqualification of counsel unsupported 
Courts could disqualify lawyers practicing before them “if counsel has a conflict of interest, is subject to outside influence, or is a necessary witness in the case.” The probate division of the circuit court ruled that the client was totally disabled and incapacitated, and so could not contract to hire counsel, and dismissed the action filed by counsel. But nothing in the record showed that any contract for hire existed. “Attorneys may provide their services pro bono or be paid by a family member or friend of the client.” Absent that, and any factual basis for disqualification, the order disqualifying counsel constituted an abuse of discretion. And, because the disqualification was the ground for dismissing the action, the Missouri Court of Appeals also reversed the dismissal. 
(Overview summary) 
In the Matter of: Jennifer Kinard vs. Alexa Summit 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86831

Contract

Challenges not preserved 
Preservation of challenges on appeal required raising the challenge in circuit court. Statute allowed prejudgment interest on liquidated damages, but the state’s after-trial motion omitted a challenge based on liquidation. Preservation of a constitutional challenge required the state to raise the matter at the earliest possibility, and the states’s post-trial motion cited constitutional provisions barring payment greater than contracted for work within the contract’s scope, but the state’s point relied on cited work outside the contract’s scope. Challenges to an instruction required a specific objection. The verdict director offered alternative theories of recovery in a single instruction, and the state made no objection to one of the theories, so the state waived any objection to an award under that instruction. An objection to an instruction based on sufficiency of the evidence to support the instruction did not preserve a challenge based on the provisions of the contract. One provision of a contract with the state entitled the contractor for performance “delivered to and accepted by the State” during the contract, and another provision governing amounts due on the state’s termination of the contract did not raise any conflict. The contract barred the contractor from charging the state interest, but only in the context of costs that the contractor could pass on to the state, not in the context of a judgment for damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment: $18,945,341 for the contractor. 
(Overview summary) 
HHS Technology Group Holdings, LLC., et al. vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86036 Consolidated with WD86055)

Criminal

Motion to suppress needed expert evidence 
On the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, based on an invalid consent to a blood draw and invalid waiver of Miranda rights, the state had the burden of proof to show that the consent and waiver were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. “A knowing and intelligent waiver is ‘normally shown by having a police officer testify that he read the accused his rights, asked whether the rights were understood, and received an affirmative response[,]’” which the record showed. The record also showed that the defendant involuntarily received “a tranquilizing drug” before the consent and waiver, so the circuit court granted the motion. But the record did not show that the drug made the consent and waiver anything less than knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. That was a matter for expert evidence and all the record showed was the defendant’s argument that the drug was a “heavy narcotic.” The state carried its burden so the Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the order suppressing evidence and remanded the action. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. AMANDA M. MIRE, Defendant-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38445

Post-conviction

New deadline made filing timely 
Amended provisions of procedural law applied to pending actions, so the amended deadline for filing an amended motion —effective while the movant’s time was running — extended the time for filing the amended motion. The movant did not show that expert testimony on the movant’s mental health at sentencing, in addition to the evidence already before the circuit court, would have secured him a suspended execution of sentence. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief. 
(Overview summary) 
Cameron D. Woods vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86799

Motion did not preserve point relied on 
As to a charge of possessing contraband, the motion charged that plea counsel failed to investigate and advise the movant of a defense, that the movant possessed mere residue of contraband below a minimum amount. But a minimum amount was not among the elements of the offense, so those facts did not constitute a defense. On appeal, the movant argued that possessing mere residue negated the element of knowledge of the contraband’s presence. That argument did not appear in the motion, so it was unpreserved for appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Timothy L. Davis vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86678