Case summaries for April 18-24, 2025

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Family | insurance | Orders of protection | Post-conviction | Real estate | Schools | Tax

Appellate

Incomplete record required dismissal 
Appellant had to prepare and file in an appellate court the record on appeal. The record on appeal had to include a complete transcript. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the state’s evidence but included a transcript only of the defense’s closing argument, the sentencing, and one item of evidence. Without a transcript of the testimony, finding the evidence insufficient was impossible. After giving notice of the deficiency, and appellant’s failure to correct, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. David Thompson, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112699

Civil

Injunction bond ready for execution 
"An injunction bond 'is, in effect, the price for unsuccessful resort to the unusual anticipatory remedies of equity.’” Once the circuit court dissolved its preliminary injunction, collection of damages against the bond could proceed either by motion in the underlying case or by separate action. Judgment against the bond was not final for appeal while the circuit court stayed judgment in the underlying action. Appellants did not show that they preserved their challenge for appeal so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
MARK BECKMANN, CHERYL BECKMANN, WILLIAM ANGELL, SHERRY ANGELL, MARK EDGECOMB, MIKE EDGECOMB, GARY GARDNER, KATHY GARDNER, TOM RUTLEDGE, TARA RUTLEDGE, JERRY MAIER, BRENDA MAIER, MARK HAUPT, PAMELA HAUPT, JEFFREY ALAN PORTER, and JODY PORTER, Appellants v. JOY PHILLIPS and DANIEL JOSEPH GARNER, Respondents 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38436

Criminal

No expungement for class A felony 
Expungement of criminal convictions was available with specific exceptions that included “any class A felony offense.” Classifications of offenses changed over time but plain statutory language in the past tense showed that the classification at the time of the conviction controlled. Respondent’s drug trafficking in the second degree, a class A felony when entered, was not subject to expungement. 
(Overview Summary) 
D.V.J. vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol - CJIS, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86892

No severance needed 
Joint trials better determined relative culpability and produced consistent verdicts. Severance was necessary only when a jury could not correctly attribute evidence to respective defendants. Instructions to consider each count mitigated any such danger. Error was reversible only if prejudicial. “In a criminal trial involving improperly admitted evidence, the test for prejudice is whether the error was outcome-determinative.” On charges of statutory rape, photographs of filthy family home were not outcome-determinative because other overwhelming evidence established guilt. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sara E. Dodd, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112281

No castle doctrine instruction necessary 
To show plain error in instructional error required proof of an effect on the verdict. A statute codified the Castle Doctrine of self-defense by deadly force. The Castle Doctrine’s elements included imminent use of unlawful force by the decedent, of which defendant offered no substantial evidence. And, insofar as the jury rejected a general self-defense instruction, sua submitting no instruction on deadly force sua sponte was not plain error. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Korrie D. Black, Jr., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112231

Demeanor determinative in Batson challenge 
The state could not strike venirepersons from a jury based solely on race. The presence of unstruck persons of one race did not, alone, support striking a person of that race. Nor did a venireperson’s silence when other venirepersons were silent. But a venireperson’s inattentive and uninterested demeanor constituted a race-neutral basis for a strike. Strikes could stand on a prosecutor’s hunch, if race-neutral, meriting deference to the circuit court’s ruling. Defendant did not show that the strike’s basis was pretextual. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Joshua L. Stokes, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112524

Evidence

Testimony on credibility discussed 
Asking one witness to comment on another witness’s mental state was subject to objection but failure to object left only plain error review of the circuit court’s failure to intervene sua sponte. “In a criminal case, this line of questioning may put a defendant in an ‘untenable position’: ’By objecting to such questions, a defendant could look evasive, but answering could put him in an even worse light.’” Sua sponte intervention was disfavored and other evidence supported a conviction so the result was not outcome-determinative. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Daniel J. Garber, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112494

No prejudice from cumulative evidence
Error was reversible only if outcome-determinative. On charges of statutory rape, photographs of filthy family home were not outcome-determinative because they were cumulative of other evidence and overwhelming evidence established guilt. Evidence of uncharged bad acts was admissible to show “(1) motive; (2) identity of the person charged; (3) intent; (4) absence of mistake or accident; (5) a common scheme or plan; or (6) a complete and coherent picture of the circumstances and events surrounding the charged crime.” When the circuit court properly limited evidence of uncharged bad acts, a witness went beyond that limitation and defendant failed to renew the objection, defendant failed to preserve error as to that testimony. And cumulative evidence could not be prejudicial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview Summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Joshua A. Dodd, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112280

Family

Third-party visitation affirmed 
The non-waivable nature of subject matter jurisdiction issues like standing means that a party may challenge the standing once but may still waive it later. Visitation with and custody of a child were available to a person unrelated to the child by blood or marriage. Such an award was available by independent action on grounds that included having acted a primary parent, unfitness of the primary custodian, and the child’s best interest and welfare. When a proposed judgment came before a circuit court, and the parties agreed to it, the circuit court could enter it as a consent judgment. Consent described the parties’ visitation schedule but the judgment was otherwise subject to the circuit court’s review of and determinations on the parties’ filings. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied respondent’s motion for sanctions because respondent’s argument were not frivolous, just unsuccessful. 
(Overview Summary) 
In Re the Matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., Minors; Alicia Smith vs. Lora Martinez 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87406 consolidated with WD87522

No notice of right to appointed counsel was necessary 
Constitutional provisions gave appellant parent the right to appointed counsel when parental rights were at stake. In an action to terminate parental rights, statutes required notice of the right to appointed counsel. Appellant received no notice of the right to appointed counsel and received no appointed counsel until after judgment was final. Appointed counsel then preserved the matter of notice for appellate review by raising it at the first opportunity. But appellant was not party to an action to terminate parental rights; appellant was party to an action for adoption without parental consent because of abandonment. That action had the effect of terminating parental rights, but no statute required notice to appellant of the right to counsel. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.S.: N.A.W., Respondent vs. R.L.S., II, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38621

Insurance

Renewal disputed 
Summary judgment required the movant to establish beyond genuine dispute facts under which the law entitled the movant to a favorable disposition. The parties’ automobile policy provided automatic renewal absent notice otherwise. Notices of cancellation and non-renewal were subject to statutory requirements that the insurer did not establish, including delivery by a tracking method endorsed by the United States Postal Service. The issuance of new insurance documents to the insured also raised a genuine dispute as to whether insurer discontinued the policy. Such a record precluded summary judgment. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment for the insured and remanded the action. 
(Overview Summary) 
Jeremy Scott, and Stephanie Scott, Appellants., vs. Farm Bureau Town and Country Insurance Company of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113072

Orders of protection

Harassment not shown 
Full orders of protection could issue on a showing of domestic violence by harassment. Harassment’s elements included alarm, both to any reasonable person and to the victim. Neither appeared in the record because yelling and disparagement were not “something markedly greater than the level of uneasiness, nervousness, unhappiness, or the like which are commonly experienced in day to day living.” The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the full order of protection. 
(Overview Summary) 
C.Y.L., Respondent, vs. Z.L., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112481

Post-conviction

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were too late 
Motions for post-conviction relief were subject to rules governing civil procedure “insofar as applicable [,]” and a specific provision dispensed with the need for a document denominated “Judgment [,]” so appeal from an “order’ was possible. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were necessary to determine whether a ruling was clearly erroneous. A docket entry of “Movant’s Motion DENIED. [Judge’s initials]” did not meet that requirement and an amended judgment issued too late. But the motion for amended judgment was timely so the circuit court had to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on remand. 
(Overview Summary) 
James Alfred Griffin, IV. vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86811

Appellate counsel not shown ineffective 
The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel were that counsel’s substandard performance was outcome-determinative. Sentencing was so indeterminate a process that prejudice was hard to show, and movant did not show that trial counsel should have offered mitigating evidence because movant offered no mitigating evidence to trial counsel. One juror overheard a comment that included nothing not already heard, and trial counsel moved for a mistrial. Trial counsel also moved to suppress a witness’s identification. The circuit court denied those motions. Challenging those ruling on appeal was not necessary for appellate counsel to be effective because success was unlikely, and appellate counsel’s job was to maximize movant’s chance of success on appeal, not to raise every possible point on appeal. 
(Overview Summary) 
Marcell Smith, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112499

Real estate

Errors in instructions not preserved 
The elements of a claim for ejectment included defendant’s possession of plaintiff’s property and retention after demand for surrender. Plaintiffs supported those elements with evidence of run-off from defendant’s demolition site to plaintiff’s basement. Motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict challenging a submissible case for ejectment did not preserve error as to double damages. Damage instructions, not objected to timely, were not subject to challenge on appeal. An objection based on election of remedies or election of inconsistent theories did not preserve any objection to any instruction’s language. An objection to the standard recited in a punitive damages instruction did not preserve a challenge to the language describing knowing conduct. 
(Overview Summary) 
Racket Merchandise Company vs. 718 Grand, LLC, U.S. Property, Inc. and Power & Light Properties, LLC 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86753 consolidated with WD86767

Schools

Sex discrimination award affirmed 
The Human Rights Act barred discrimination based on gender in places of public accommodation, including schools. Only in the complete absence of probative supporting evidence was a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict due. A motion for directed verdict as to an employer’s liability did not preserve for appeal a challenge to a submissible case of sex discrimination. Evidence of an employee’s arousal, displays, and inappropriate touching of students was logically relevant, no more prejudicial than probative, and subject to refutation if the defense had wanted to offer an explanation into evidence. The record supported an instruction on future damages and, even if it didn’t, the non-itemized verdict did not show any award of future damages. No award of punitive damages against an employee was necessary for a jury to make a punitive damages award against an employer. The employer’s liability was before the jury on instructions that focused on the employee but, when read together, allowed the jury to find against the employer. Clear and convincing proof of reckless disregard, at least, for student safety supporting an award of punitive damages could include circumstantial evidence. Evidence of employer’s evil motive included an uninvestigated earlier incident of inappropriate touching, retaliation against plaintiff for reporting inappropriate touching, and an investigation that used a video recording from the wrong events. The absence of error barred any relief for cumulative error. 
(Overview Summary) 
D.W., A Minor Child, By and Through Her Natural Parent and Next Friend, L.W. vs. Hogan Preparatory Academy, Inc., et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87137

Board of education had standing 
In any action, whether the circuit court exercised subject matter jurisdiction included whether the plaintiff had standing. Standing included a legally protected interest. Statutes governing charter schools made school boards a party to the application process, including notice and an opportunity to object. Those provisions constituted interests that the board could protect in an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Therefore, the board had standing and the circuit court erred in dismissing the board’s action. 
(Overview Summary) 
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112985

Tax

No earnings tax on unearned income 
Taxpayers had to file a return and pay a tax on earnings. Earnings did not include “unearned income,” meaning income solely from investment in a property rental business that the taxpayer did not have any authority to manage or operate. Disputed taxes were subject to injunction or payment under protest. The latter applied only before delinquency. 
(Overview Summary) 
Gregory F.X. Daly, in his official capacity as the Collector of Revenue for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, v. Mary Anne Helmsing, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112856