Case summaries for April 4-10, 2025

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Elections | Post-conviction | Real estate | Workers' compensation

Appellate

Appellate court had no authority to advocate 
Rules of appellate practice protected the appellate courts’ neutrality. After the opportunity to correct briefing deficiencies, the appellant failed to comply with rules that required the appellant to cite the source of the Missouri Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction, set forth facts with relevant citations to the record, state the legal reason and authorities supporting any challenge to any ruling in a point relied on, describe whether and how the appellant preserved error, argue the application of law to fact with references to the record, and include an appendix as prescribed by rule. Addressing the merits of the appeal would have required the Court of Appeals to exercise “considerable advocacy” with uncertain results, which appellate courts had no authority to do. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Roy Renegar, et al., Appellants, vs. Richard Borman, et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113102

Civil

Nunc pro tunc relief denied 
Failure to state a claim meant failure to allege facts that, even if true, provided grounds for relief. Relief nunc pro tunc merely corrected records to reflect events as they occurred but were not accurately due to clerical error. Clerical error in a consent judgment meant that the judgment did accurately record the parties’ agreement. If the parties inaccurately drafted the agreement, but the judgment accurately recorded the agreement as filed, no clerical error occurred and no relief nunc pro tunc was due. The movant did not allege any error in the judgment, only in the agreement, and no error was shown in the agreement’s departure from statutory default language. The circuit court dismissed the movant’s motion for relief nunc pro tunc and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
(Overview summary) 
In Re the Marriage of: Holly Christine Hyde and Michael James Hyde; Holly Christine Hyde vs. Michael James Hyde 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87426

Criminal

Conviction for endangering the welfare of a child affirmed 
The elements of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree included knowingly creating a real possibility, not necessarily the result, of injury. Knowingly meant practically certain. The state showed that element with evidence that the defendant repeatedly put her children in a hot car, knew that was dangerous, and changed her story multiple times. Evidence of uncharged crimes was generally inadmissible to show the defendant’s propensity for committing crimes, but was admissible for other purposes, like showing that the events included methamphetamine use. Whether admitting such evidence was error was immaterial when the defendant showed no prejudice compared to other “compelling and horrific” evidence. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Jenna M. Boedecker 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86509

Cell phone data supported convictions 
Cell phone records tracking the movements of defendant and a confederate, and evidence of the defendant’s regular access to the vehicle used in a car chase and shooting, placed the defendant at the scene of the murder. Cell phone records also showed that a victim had possession of a cell phone before the shooting and not after the shooting, supporting an inference that defendant robbed the victim of the phone. Second-degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon had differing elements, so no double jeopardy occurred on conviction for both offenses on one set of facts. The sentences as spoken in open court were unambiguous, so no plain error occurred in sentencing, and the written sentence served further to clarify the sentences. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Vontez G. Howard 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD86367

Motion for rehearing or transfer on self-defense denied 
Self-defense was a special negative defense: The defendant must raise it and the state must negate it beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to instruct on self-defense when substantial evidence supported such an instruction relieved the State of its burden. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied the state’s motion for rehearing or transfer. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RICHARD NEIL BURKETT, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38459

Elections

Circuit court could not remove proposition from ballot 
Appellate courts generally dismissed appeals in which the controversy was hypothetical, or no effective relief was possible, as moot. Election statutes alone governed election contests and set a deadline for courts to remove a proposition from a ballot. County council approved a charter amendment for submittal to the voters, but the circuit court issued declaratory relief that disapproved the proposition’s ballot summary language and issued an injunction to remove the proposition from the ballot. The Missouri Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, keeping the proposition on the ballot past the statutory deadline. The passage of the deadline rendered the declaratory relief and the injunction moot. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the injunction. But the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied to the declaratory relief, so the Court of Appeals reviewed the declaratory relief. Declaratory relief did not apply to elections and courts had no inherent authority over elections. Even if the declaratory judgment statutes applied to elections, no justiciable controversy existed because all challenges to the proposition were hypothetical until voters approved the proposition. Statutes limited pre-election challenges to the procedure for getting a proposition to the ballot and reserved substantive challenges — including the fiscal note and ballot summary — for propositions that passed. As to the application of post-election challenge statutes, the Court of Appeals declined to rule, because such a ruling would constitute an advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals reversed the declaratory relief and entered judgment dismissing the action. 
Rodney Gee, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, Defendant/Respondent, and St. Louis County Council, Defendant/Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113323

Post-conviction

No basis for imperfect self-defense until trial 
On an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the elements included an outcome determined by counsel’s substandard performance. On a charge of murder in the first degree, a lesser included offense instruction on involuntary manslaughter was due on evidence of imperfect self-defense. “The defense of imperfect self-defense applies when a defendant intentionally uses deadly force on the genuine belief that he or she is in imminent danger, but that belief, though honest, is unreasonable under the circumstances.” No such allegations surfaced until movant testified at trial so trial counsel could not have prepared that defense. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
(Overview summary) 
Christopher R. Sokolic, Jr., Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112533

Real estate

Adverse possession shown, other events irrelevant 
The Statute of Frauds did not apply to conveyances by adverse possession. Adverse possession’s elements included possession that was contrary to, and exclusive of, the rights of the true owner. The burden of proof was on the proponent of adverse possession and the standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence, even when family members were involved. Once the elements of adverse possession occurred, other events were irrelevant. Judgments that determined title to real property were not final without a description of that real estate sufficient for the parties to understand the boundaries, preferably by legal description, but a reference to an exhibit in the record on appeal was sufficient for the circuit court to decline sua sponte plain error review. An evidentiary objection not raised at trial was not subject to appeal. A defense alleged, but not subject to a request for findings of fact, nor of a motion to amend, was abandoned. Errors alleged, but not in the points relied on or in argument, were abandoned. The elements of a challenge to a ruling as against the weight of the evidence included identifying: a factual proposition necessary to the ruling, all the evidence favoring that ruling, and all evidence contrary to that proposition with resolution of disputes in accordance with the circuit court’s credibility determinations. Identifying less than all evidence as required, and relying on irrelevant evidence, caused appellant’s challenge to fail. No prejudice resulted from the judgment’s erroneous description of an exhibit. 
(Overview summary) 
Justin Brownfield vs. Darrin Heman, Angela Heman, and Creighton Storage 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87163 consolidated with WD87164

Workers’ compensation

Documents on pre-existing injury were sufficient 
A decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission was subject to appellate review for competent evidence. In a claim on the Second Injury Fund, the elements included a pre-existing injury that met certain requirements. Those requirements included being “medically documented” and a resulting disability of a specified degree. The documentation need not show the degree of disability, so a the degree of disability could come from a different source. Ignoring such a source showed that the commission’s decision to deny relief was not supported by sufficient competent evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed the commission’s decision and remanded the action for entry of an award against the Second Injury Fund. 
(Overview summary) 
Jeffrey P. Wetzel vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87372

Prevailing factor discussed 
A decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission was subject to appellate review for competent evidence, which a decision passed if not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The evidence showed that a workplace accident was a precipitating factor in claimant’s disability, but a pre-existing non-work-related condition was the prevailing factor. The commission’s discussion of whether claimant should have sought treatment for the prevailing factor did not show that the commission attributed the disability to claimant’s negligence. The commission’s preference for one expert opinion over another did not constitute a substitution of the commission’s medical opinion for an expert’s medical opinion. 
(Overview summary) 
Thomas Hasselbring vs. Macon County Nursing Home District and Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of Second Injury Fund
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87279