Case summaries for March 20-26, 2026

Appellate | Criminal | Family | Insurance | Post-conviction | Real estate | Workers' compensation

Appellate

Written findings of fact offer an advantage on appeal 
Circuit courts had to make written findings of fact on a request made before the introduction of evidence and specifying controverted material facts on which the movant sought written findings. The appellant failed to comply with those requirements and so “forfeits that advantage on appellate review, because the trial court’s findings are considered as having been found in accordance with the judgment.” And appellate courts affirmed judgments on any basis that had support in the record, so challenging less than all theories required the Missouri Court of Appeals to affirm the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Michelle Cerruti, et al., vs. Bank of Odessa
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87822

Notice of appeal was too late 
Appellate courts had to examine their own jurisdiction sua sponte and on theories besides those raised by the parties. The circuit court’s authority over the original judgment extended until, and expired when, the circuit court ruled on all timely filed after-trial motions. The ruling made the judgment final, starting the time to file a notice of appeal. That ruling also ended the circuit court’s authority so an amended judgment entered after that — even on the same day — was unauthorized and so did not start another time to file authorized after-trial motions. The appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the void amended judgment but not from the original effective judgment. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
200 W Armour Boulevard, LLC vs. Tabitha A Judson
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87282

Criminal

Propensity evidence discussed
The sufficiency of the evidence required no preservation and depended on whether all evidence, whether or not published to the jury, supported a conviction on the offense as described in the charging instrument. Propensity evidence was admissible in criminal actions alleging sexual misconduct with a child depending on probity of guilt and unfair prejudice to the defense. When the defense attacked the victim’s credibility, and the prior bad act alleged was similar to the charged offense, probity was increased. When the defense’s cross-examination elicited evidence that prior bad acts were never prosecuted, prejudice was decreased. When the record showed no violation of a motion in limine, the Missouri Court of Appeals denied plain error review. The record supported a conviction for either solicitation of a child or for the attempt. Matters tried to the bench were presumptively free of any error based on inadmissible evidence, and the defendant did not overcome that presumption as to the victim impact statement of the victim of the defendant’s prior bad acts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Timothy Edward Brown
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87759

Felony resisting v. Misdemeanor resisting 
The sufficiency of the evidence depended on whether all evidence, including evidence not published to the jury, supported a conviction. Resisting arrest by fleeing was a felony if the arrest was for a felony. The defendant fled from an arrest for offenses that included a felony so the defendant was guilty of a felony. The warrant for the arrest was in evidence so it supported the conviction. Moreover, it was not published to the jury on the parties’ admissions and stipulation. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Micah Nathaniel Cunningham
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87681

Cell phone seizure and search okay 
The search of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest was subject to the requirement of a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement, and the seizure may become unreasonable over the time between the seizure and an application for a search warrant. One and a half days was not too long for a reasonable seizure, especially when the defendant made no demand for a cell phone’s return, and considering the potential value of evidence in the phone. On the admission of testimony, preservation of error required a contemporaneous objection and a pre-testimony objection was insufficient. No manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, and hence no plain error, resulted from the admission of cumulative evidence identifying the defendant as the driver of a vehicle. On the exclusion of evidence, preservation of error required an offer of proof. The defendant did not show any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, and hence no plain error, resulting from the exclusion of evidence not described in any offer of proof, especially considering other evidence of guilt. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Cleon D. White
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87062

Two victims, two convictions, no double jeopardy 
Double jeopardy left legislatures free to define offenses and fix punishments, but barred courts from trying any defendant for any one offense more than once, and from imposing multiple punishments per offense. Multiple punishments therefore depended on whether multiple offenses occurred, and multiple offenses could occur on a single set of facts, like causing injuries to multiple persons. The elements of driving while intoxicated felony class E included the driver causing physical injury to another person. The elements of driving while intoxicated felony class D included the defendant causing serious physical injury to another person. Those provisions constituted, not differing degrees of one offense, but separate offenses with separate elements. The driver caused physical injury to a first victim and serious physical injury to second victim, which supported convictions for each victim, class E and D respectively. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RAYETTA ANN LAYTON, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38797

No sentence of confinement without counsel 
No person could receive a jail sentence unless represented at trial. The defendant was indigent and never waived counsel. Plain error occurred when the circuit court imposed a sentence that included confinement in jail without appointing counsel. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the conviction and remanded the action. 
CITY OF BRANSON WEST, Plaintiff-Respondent v. NATASHA RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39051

Defendant opened the door to evidence of bond violations 
To counter a matter raised first by the defendant, the circuit court could admit otherwise inadmissible evidence from the State; so, when the defendant raised the conditions of the defendant’s bond, the State could offer evidence of the defendant’s bond violations. Evidence of escape was admissible to show consciousness of guilt and the defendant’s explanation went only to the weight of such evidence. When the error charged was the erroneous admission of evidence, prejudice meant that a finding of guilt was not reasonably likely without that evidence. That did not describe the firearms-related literature and paraphernalia found in the defendant’s possession when compared to “the weighty and material evidence the State presented to the jury to support his conviction.” Plain error review was discretionary and inviting error in general — specifically, complaining of an instruction that the defendant submitted — supported a determination to decline plain error review. The defendant had the right to jury findings on his status as a prior and persistent offender status, and the circuit court made those findings instead; but those findings had no effect on the sentence, so no plain error occurred. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark R. Perry, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113016

Family

"Thorough and thoughtful judgment” affirmed on property valuation and maintenance 
Rulings on judicial notice were subject to review for abuse of discretion. No abuse of discretion occurred when the circuit declined to take judicial notice of an interlocutory ruling in the manner sought; the record showed that the circuit court did take official notice of the interlocutory ruling, and the appellant showed no prejudice. Circuit courts were free to find the value of property anywhere within the range of values that evidence supported. “Indeed, it is difficult to countenance Husband’s complaint on appeal when he was awarded a home specifically valued at $965,033 while Wife was imputed a home valued at $600,000.” The circuit court made no error in calculating the expenses and income of the party receiving maintenance, and in adjusting the paying party’s income by considering a substantial over-withholding for income taxes. Circuit courts had to make written findings of fact on request and failure to comply was cause for reversal when material interference with appellate review resulted. “Here, the judgment is indeed ‘exemplary’ and demonstrates careful consideration of the facts and law. Without relying on proposed judgments from the parties, the judge wrote his own findings and conclusions addressing the controverted issues . . . and certainly addresses the material issues. Such a thorough and thoughtful judgment actually drafted by the trial judge supports rather than interferes with appellate review.” 
(Overview summary)
Ivan S. Ganev, Appellant, v. Dondee D. Ganev, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113253

Insurance

Insurer’s right to intervene explained
An arguable defect in the appellant’s point relied on did not impede appellate review and so did not require dismissal. In actions for personal injury, when the plaintiffs and defendants agreed to settle for insurance coverage limits, the defendants’ insurers had the right to intervention unbound by any stipulations that the plaintiff and defendant made. The purpose of intervention was to contest the defendants’ liability on the merits, not merely coverage, including trial by jury. A partial summary judgment resolving only one of three cross-claims by the defendant against the defendant’s insurer did not constitute a final judgment subject to appeal. It also did not resolve any claim, because all the defendant’s theories arose from the same events, and so was not subject to certification for appeal. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed that appeal. The circuit court’s summary judgment for the plaintiff against defendant, and purporting to bind intervenor insurer over intervenor’s objection, was error. The Court of Appeals reversed that summary judgment and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary)
Connie E. Lyda and Mark Northcott vs. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87901 consolidated with WD87902

Post-conviction

Same argument, same finding, same result 
Ineffective assistance of counsel meant substandard performance resulting in prejudice. As to a guilty plea, prejudice meant a less than knowing and voluntary plea. The motion for relief charged that plea counsel should have argued a motion to suppress better. The movant did not show any clear error because the arguments in the motion for relief and the motion to suppress were the same and the judge ruling on the motion to suppress and the motion for relief were the same. The motion alleged a fourth amendment violation in the search of a barn on property where the movant alleged that he lived, but the circuit court disbelieved the movant and so found no grounds for suppression. That finding found deference on appeal. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
JEFFREY DUANE BROOKE, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38980

Rejection of defense negated prejudice 
The elements of ineffective assistance of counsel included prejudice resulting from substandard performance. On a charge of tampering, trial counsel supported the movant’s defense of duress with photographic and expert evidence, so lay witnesses’ observations would have been cumulative. And those witnesses could also have harmed the defense. On those facts, trial counsel’s choice against calling the lay witnesses was a reasonable trial strategy, especially when the movant agreed with it. As to other charges, the defense was that the movant did not participate, which a duress instruction would have contradicted, so choosing against that instruction was sound trial strategy. Sound trial strategy negated substandard performance, and the jury rejected the duress defense for tampering, which negated prejudice as to the instruction. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
KIMBERLY D. RISTON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38918

Public defender not appointed, no abandonment 
Timely filing was an element of any claim for post-conviction relief, and circuit courts had no authority to rule on a motion filed late. Exceptions included abandonment by post-conviction counsel appointed by the circuit court as required, typically a public defender; but not by any other counsel, even a public defender if not appointed. “Ironically, ‘[t]he public defender’s entry of an appearance without an appointment order obviates the need for the motion court to appoint counsel under Rule 29.15(e) because the movant is shown of record as represented by counsel.’” A public defender entered an appearance for the movant without appointment, so the abandonment doctrine did not apply to the movant’s amended motion untimely filed. The circuit court had no authority to rule on the amended motion, only the initial motion, and the initial motion’s claims remained unaddressed. The judgment was therefore not final. “Words matter in the law and the court encourages continued close coordination between the public defender’s office and motion courts on these important issues.” The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the amended motion and remanded the action for a ruling on the initial motion. 
(Overview summary)
Desmond A. Mills, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113258

Real estate

Condo declarations required arbitration
Grounds for vacating an arbitration award included the absence of an agreement to arbitrate. An agreement to arbitrate consisted of owning condominium property that was subject to declarations requiring arbitration of certain disputes. Those disputes included any matter arising under the declarations, which governed parking spaces, which was the subject of the appellant’s dispute. The circuit court did not err in affirming the arbitration award and denying the appellant’s motion to vacate. 
(Overview summary)
Julia A. Haack as Trustee of the Julie A. Haack Family Trust, Dated March 25, 1999, as Amended and Restated by the Fully Amended and Restated Julie A. Haack Family Trust, Dated September 21, 2013 and Further Amended by Amendments Thereto Dated February 5, 2015 and December 11, 2018 vs. Donald E. Jarvis, as Trustee of the Donald E. Jarvis and Wilma A. Jarvis Revocable Trust
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88062

Workers’ compensation

Attorney’s fee lien had to include past medical expenses 
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s determinations of credibility and findings of fact received deference on appellate review, subject to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The record supported a finding that the respondent employer did not act in bad faith when delivering less than all video surveillance of the claimant so the Commission did not err in denying a remedy. The Commission found that the appellant claimant was not permanently and totally disabled. The claimant did not show that the overwhelming weight of the evidence was against that finding. The employers had to provide the claimants with medical treatment for covered conditions and, when the employers refused such payment, the claimants were entitled to past medical expenses that claimants covered themselves regardless of payment from a collateral source like the claimants’ insurance. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission erred when it ordered payment of past medical expenses to the claimant’s health care providers instead of the claimant. “[T]he notion that application of an individual’s own insurance does not cost the individual anything is typically contrary to the practical reality of private medical insurance.” And the attorneys who had to litigate medical expenses were due a fee, and a lien to enforce that fee, for that litigation. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action to the Commission to determine the fee due for litigating past medical expenses. 
(Overview summary)
Russell Chick vs. City of Centralia and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD88273