Case summaries for April 3-9, 2026

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Orders of protection | Post-conviction | Tax

Appellate

No ruling requested, no error preserved
If the State deliberately injected evidentiary error into a criminal trial, mistrial was a remedy. A State witness testified beyond the scope of the circuit court’s order in limine, the defendant moved for a mistrial, the circuit court gave a curative instruction, and the defendant neither objected nor sought a ruling on a mistrial. Those events preserved no error as to mistrial, leaving only review for plain error. Plain error’s elements included an obvious error that caused a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. The defendant did not show deliberate transgression of the order in limine, nor manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice in the curative instruction, and the law disfavored plain error review on ruling resulting from the defendant’s failure to act. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review and the affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark Love, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113402

Civil

Default pending removal affirmed
Notice of removal timely filed and served on all adverse parties would have subjected an action in circuit court to the jurisdiction of a United States district court, but the appellant defendant did not show compliance with that procedure, and such jurisdiction would have been concurrent with the circuit court. The timely filing of an answer would have negated default and required the circuit court to set aside the default judgment, but the defendant did not show timely filing of an answer. Parties in default had no right to notice of the default proceedings. The circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Kathleen A. Kiska vs. Harold E. Fortner, Jr.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88015 consolidated with WD88016

Summary judgment responses stricken 
The movant for summary judgment prevailed by establishing beyond genuine dispute the facts that entitled them to a favorable judgment. On a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party had to respond to the movant’s statement of undisputed facts with an admission or a denial, and a denial was deemed an admission unless it complied with the mandated format. That format excluded any matter beyond the numbered paragraph of the motion that the response addressed; and required the response to raise any genuine dispute of material fact by alleging such fact and supporting that allegation with evidence. Responses that only quoted deposition testimony did not comply. No court, neither circuit nor appellate, could “determine whether there are possibly isolated phrases or statements … that technically comply … without impermissibly acting as advocates … separating facts from conclusions, isolating admissions from disputes, and determining the material from the immaterial.” A motion to stay summary judgment pending additional discovery had to describe the relevance of such discovery and include a supporting affidavit, which the non-movant failed to do, so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the stay. Motions to strike challenged the content of motions and responses. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in striking appellant’s non-compliant responses, and those non-compliant responses could not support an argument on appeal. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Liliya Turubchuk, Individually and Personal Representative of the Estate of Aleksey Turubchuk, Deceased, Ludmilla Nemtsova, and Irina Turubchuk, Appellants, v. Jamie Boock, Matthew Rossiter, and Rossiter & Boock, LLC, Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113473

Criminal

SORA included third-degree assault 
Missouri’s Sex Offender Registration Act required the registration of any person convicted of an offense, regardless of the offense’s category, against a minor on sexual facts. The facts were subject to proof by testimony and documents, not including abandoned pleadings, but including probable cause statements. In an action for declaratory judgment, petitioner sought removal from the registry. Petitioner had a conviction for assault in the third degree, the elements of which had no sexual nature. But the allegations in the probable cause statement included sexual contact. Petitioner did not carry the burden of proof, so the circuit court denied relief, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Brent E. Outersky vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87818

Faulty instruction required new trial 
In criminal actions, instructions had to submit every element of the offense charged, and departure from approved instructions was presumptively prejudicial. The offense charged was resisting detention, the elements of which included the lawfulness of the detention, which the instructions substituted “that the basis for the detention was for service of a court order[.]” That alteration relieved the State of its burden to prove each element of the offense. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the conviction and remanded the action for a new trial. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. VICTOR LAMONT HOUSTON, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38926

Propensity evidence okay
In the trial of specified offenses, evidence of prior uncharged bad acts was admissible as corroboration or propensity evidence. Such evidence was also admissible to show motivation when the victim was the same in the charged and uncharged offenses. That described a video of victim describing a prior uncharged offense by defendant. The probity of such evidence outweighed any unfair prejudice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DANIEL W. MATLOCK, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38693

Evidence

Expert testimony, punitive damages award, okay in industrial toxin case 
Motions in limine required corresponding objections and offers of proof to preserve error as to the admission or exclusion of evidence. The foundation for expert testimony included “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,” but not labels. The plaintiff’s expert had qualifications in industrial hygiene, including conditions that resulted from high concentrations of the defendant’s food flavoring chemicals in the plaintiff’s workplace, so whether the expert was a “flavor scientist” was irrelevant. The foundation for expert testimony also included an opinion based on the information ordinarily used by such experts, including another expert’s opinion, and that information did not have to be in the record. The testimony of an expert on the cause of a medical conditions was reliable when the expert began “by ‘ruling in’ all scientifically plausible causes of the plaintiff’s injury. The [expert] then ‘rule[d] out’ the least plausible causes of injury until the most likely cause remain[ed].” Other challenges went to the weight of the expert testimony and not admissibility. The circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of similar illnesses at other workplaces and excluding some of the defendant’s evidence related to alternate causes for the plaintiff’s condition based on probative value versus possible jury confusion. The appellant defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenged whether the plaintiff had made a submissible case on several elements. Each challenged element had to be the subject of a separate point relied on and combining them in a multifarious point preserved nothing for review. Punitive damages in the amount awarded were possible because they were possible in 1820. The elements of punitive damages included conscious disregard for safety, which the plaintiff showed with evidence that the defendant had failed to report information to OSHA. Reprehensible conduct punishable by fines supported the amount, and the ratio to compensatory damages, of punitive damages awarded. And the defendant’s net worth was “a valid consideration.” Post-judgment interest accrued on the entire judgment, including the State’s share of punitive damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
James J. Graham, Respondent, v. Givaudan Flavors Corporation, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113318

Testimony controlled over exhibit 
The elements included use of a dangerous instrument. The State alleged that the defendant’s assault on a sheriff’s deputy included the use of a chair as a weapon. As proof, the State offered a demonstrative exhibit, described by the deputy as similar to the one that the defendant used. “The chair in the photo was wicker with a flat back, while the chair Carroll swung at the deputy was galvanized metal with a rounded back.” On those facts, the testimony was determinative and not the photo, and the photo could not have prejudiced the defendant. Therefore, admitting the photo into evidence was not error and resulted in no manifest injustice. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review and affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Craig Carroll, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113225

Orders of protection

Stalking not shown 
In actions for a protective order based on stalking, the petitioner had to show at least two events of a specific nature that caused petition to fear physical harm with no legitimate purpose. The petitioner showed only one such event at most. Another event had a legitimate purpose and did not cause the petitioner any apprehension. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action to circuit court with directions to vacate the order and deny the petition. 
C.C., Petitioner-Respondent v. DENNIS MANNON, Respondent-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38864

Post-conviction

No claims for parole eligibility 
Rule applied to “the validity of judgments of convictions or sentences, and then only on specified grounds.” The movant did not challenge the validity of any judgment, conviction, or sentence; the movant challenged the Missouri Department of Corrections’ determination of the minimum sentence that the movant had to serve before becoming eligible for parole. The circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Joshua Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113664

Abandonment inquiry required
On the filing of initial motions, the circuit court had to appoint counsel. Timely filing of the initial motion was an element of any claim, with limited exceptions. But even if an initial pro se motion was late, appointed counsel was still due for investigation and the filing of an amended motion to plead an exception. Exceptions included third party interference. Timely filing of the amended motion was also an element of the amended claim, with limited exceptions. The exceptions included abandonment. Abandonment occurred when appointed counsel failed to file an amended motion or statement in lieu. An inquiry was due on allegations, or a record showing, abandonment. No specified format was necessary as long as the inquiry was sufficient for appellate review. Movant filed the initial motion pro se, alleging third party interference, the State filed a motion to dismiss, and appointed counsel never filed an amended motion or statement in lieu. The circuit court did not make any inquiry into abandonment and granted the motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing on the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the action for an inquiry into abandonment.
DAVID KARL BAUER, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38925

Tax

City licensing tax settlement enforced 
Cities imposed business license taxes on the gross receipts from the sale of telecommunication services and settled disputes with telecommunications service sellers by written agreement. Settlement agreements were subject to enforcement like any other contract and did not implicate the Hancock Amendment. Only contracts in which no ambiguous language required parol evidence were subject to summary judgment. But courts held sophisticated parties to objectively plain contract provisions “without regard to the parties’ subjective intent.” Summary judgments were subject to appellate review de novo. To define the scope of the tax’s levy, the agreement referred to the United States’ Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act’s definition of mobile telecommunications services. That definition did not include sales of miscellaneous goods and services in dispute. And the United States’ Internet Tax Freedom Act and Missouri statutes barred taxation on bundled internet access charges that were separately stated and reasonably identified. As to gross receipts from those sales, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the respondent sellers. The Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act also defined mobile telecommunications services to exclude certain pre-paid services from local sourcing but not the defendants’ pre-paid services. The circuit court erred by excluding pre-paid services, so the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the sellers to that extent and remanded the action to circuit court to determine the plaintiff cities’ damages from the sellers’ improper sourcing. 
(Overview summary) 
City of University City, Missouri, et al., Appellants, v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. et al, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113046