Case summaries for Feb. 13-19, 2026

Appellate | Criminal | Orders of protection

Appellate

Multifarious point dismissed 
Appellate courts would not guess at an appellant’s claim because the appellate court might get it wrong and, in constructing an argument for an appellant, the appellate court would inevitably become an advocate for the appellant. Appellate rules required the appellants to plead each claim in a separate point relied on, with one challenged ruling and one theory of reversal per point. The appellant challenged multiple rulings on both evidentiary and legal theories. The appellant also failed to set forth the standard of review, arrange his argument in the same order as his point relied on, follow the required analysis for the claims, and “tie his multiple allegations of trial court error to the facts in this case.” The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
In Re the Marriage of: HEIDI JO CLANTON, Petitioner-Respondent v. DANIEL PAUL CLANTON, Respondent-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38889

No appeal from probation revocation 
“Missouri Supreme Court rules of criminal procedure provide the rules of civil procedure apply to [probation] revocation hearings” as part of the criminal action. Appeals were possible only as authorized by law, including by final judgment. Final judgment did not include the revocation of probation. Review was by petition for an extraordinary writ. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jan Kawa, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113752

Implicit finality explained 
Appeals were possible only as authorized by law, including by final judgment, meaning a ruling that disposed of all theories as to all parties. That included a ruling implicitly final, meaning that the ruling on less than all counts “necessarily carries with it a finding upon other counts [.]” That described a summary judgment on the petition. The petition set forth three counts, each under a different theory, but all seeking recovery for one injury. For any one injury, there could be only one recovery, so summary judgment for plaintiff on one count implied denial on the other two. For that reason, the Missouri Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the judgment. But defendant appellant failed to comply with rules governing appellant’s brief, including the jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, references to the record, points relied on, authorities, standard of review, and argument. Such failure made appellate review impossible without constructing an argument for the appellant, which appellate courts will not do, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Concrete Coring Company of North America, Inc., Halcyon, LLC, and Howard H. Hall III, Appellants, v. American Contractors Indemnity Company, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113390

Criminal

Trespass and harassment convictions affirmed 
Denial of a motion to dismiss was subject to review for abuse of discretion. The constitutional provision that guaranteed open courts protected claims from arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions. The defendant refused to comply with the local rule that barred recording devices, so barring the defendant from the courthouse for 24 hours was not irrational. Denial of a motion for acquittal was subject to review for whether reasonable fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements of harassment in the second-degree included an intent to cause emotional distress, meaning greater distress than usual in context, even if unsuccessful. The defendant’s visit to the circuit court’s chief marshal, at the marshal’s personal residence and with no business purpose, implied that intent and the record showed that the chief marshal’s wife suffered such distress. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Kendall Wayne Crockett
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87758

No plain error review for omission of definition 
An in-court identification of the defendant as the perpetrator was not necessary when other evidence made that connection and, even if it were, a witness other than the victim identified the defendant in court. The instructions submitted to the jury increased the State’s burden by requiring the State to show that the victim could not consent due to youth and that the defendant knew of that inability, which the State showed with evidence that included the 35-year age difference between the victim and the defendant, and the defendant’s attempts to keep their relationship secret. That evidence also established the victim’s inability to consent, negating any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice from the clear and obvious error of omitting a definition for consent. “Where a verdict director effectively omits an essential element of the offense, such an instruction rises to the level of plain error if the evidence in the case fails to establish the existence of the omitted element ‘beyond serious dispute.’” The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review of the omission and affirmed the conviction. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JEFFREY LEE WALLER, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38562

Orders of protection

Notice was enough for conviction 
The elements of violating an order of protection, class A misdemeanor included notice of the full order of protection, which included actual notice, even without service. The State satisfied that element with proof that the defendant respondent was present at the trial at which the circuit court granted the full order, as that order showed, and by the defendant’s earlier violations and pleas of guilty to charges of violating the order. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113261