Case summaries for May 2-8, 2025

Administrative | Criminal | Employment | Evidence | Family | Health | Probate | Real Estate

Administrative

Hearsay without objection was admissible 
Labor and Industrial Relations Commission regulations provided that hearsay without an objection was admissible. Employer testified that claimant had committed misconduct connected with work, and claimant did not object based on hearsay, but the commission excluded that evidence as hearsay and granted the claim. That decision denied employer a fair hearing, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the decision. 
(Overview Summary) 
Cedric A. Jackson, Respondent, vs. True Manufacturing Co., Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112938

Criminal

Bad acts admissible 
Evidence of bad acts was inadmissible to show propensity to commit offenses generally, but was admissible for other purposes, like showing a propensity to commit the offenses charged. Evidence of an earlier confrontation at victims’ residence was admissible to identify defendant, show defendant’s animus and motive, and present a complete and coherent picture of the events. Evidence of another earlier confrontation by telephone with a witness was inadmissible but defendant did not show that it affected the outcome in the context of other “damning” evidence. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Ronald S. Marr, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112523

Guilty plea waived defects in indictment 
Guilty pleas waived most errors, other than jurisdictional errors. Indictments had to clearly set forth the facts constituting the offense charged. The offense charged was resisting arrest by flight, the elements of which included the involvement of a law enforcement officer, and the indictment alleged the involvement of an Illinois officer. Whether that allegation described a Missouri offense was an issue waived when defendant pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Monte E. Richie, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112279

Expert testimony was okay 
A motion in limine did not, alone, preserve an objection, but the record showed that the parties understood the objections. The foundation for qualification as an expert could come from experience alone, and other matters went to the weight of the expert’s testimony. Expert’s discussion of victim’s treatment constituted background and not a comment on veracity. Sentences in excess of statutory authority constituted error requiring a remand for re-sentencing. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Paul J. Warren, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED111789

Employment

Summary judgment on discrimination claims thwarted 
The Human Rights Act barred any claim on facts more than two years old, other than continuing violations, but did not negate the relevance of such facts to timely claims. The act provided a “highly persuasive” analysis for summary judgments that required: a movant defendant employer to establish non-discriminatory reasons for conduct alleged by plaintiff employee, and the employee to show that such reason was pretextual, which could include showing that defendant’s evidence was not credible. Credibility was subject to attack with evidence of practices inconsistent with policies and other means. Plaintiff showed racists statements by a supervisor and inconsistent defense testimony about denying plaintiff restroom breaks, and lifting restrictions, necessitated by a disability. The record showed a genuine dispute as to whether plaintiff was subject to race- and disability-based discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The circuit court erred in entering summary judgment for the defendant. 
(Overview Summary) 
Claudette Clement Emile vs. Triumph Foods, LLC 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87159

Evidence

Authentication of texts discussed 
Entry of documents into the record required authentication to show that they were what their proponent purported them to be. Authentication of text messages required identification of the author. Identifying the author could happen by direct evidence, like the author’s testimony, or circumstantial evidence, like ownership of the originating phone plus some other evidence. Such other evidence could be someone’s use of the phone at the time and place of the text, or knowledge in both the text and in the alleged author’s possession. Uncharged bad conduct was inadmissible as propensity evidence but was admissible as evidence that defendant committed charged offenses — burglary, murder, and stealing — and to give a complete picture of the events. Preservation of instructional error required defendant to proffer an instruction, which defendant failed to do, and appellant did not show that incorporating a civil definition of assault had any effect on the jury. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jeffery Lumzy, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112519

Silent witness doctrine applied 
On a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, movant had to show that counsel’s performance was deficient and reasonably probably caused the movant’s conviction. That never happened on the choice against making a meritless argument, nor any strategically sound choice. In a criminal action, the state had to lay the foundation for admission of evidence by a prima facie case and not beyond a reasonable doubt, which the state did for the murder weapon, which showed that the weapon was probative of guilt. The state’s foundation for identification of the murder weapon was sound, so an objection would have been meritless, and movant failed to show otherwise. The Silent Witness Doctrine provided that a video or photograph was substantive evidence of what it showed on a foundation that the recording device was accurate and secure, was operating properly at the time of the photograph or video, and its accuracy was unaffected by any alteration. Gaps in the foundation were readily remediable, so an objection would have been meritless. Whether evidence about a state witness’s credibility, or whether a witness knew defendant’s name, would have helped the defense was a matter of trial strategy. And the circuit court’s finding that no prejudice occurred was due extra deference because the same circuit court heard the underlying criminal action. 
(Overview Summary) 
Patrick Ryan Powell vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86734

Offer of proof was insufficient 
On charges of sexual offenses, the Rape Shield Statute barred evidence of victims’ earlier sexual experiences, subject exceptions that included the right to a fair trial when the state “attempt[ed] to use evidence of a victim’s unusual sexual knowledge to establish Defendant’s guilt.” Defendant’s offer of proof as to earlier sexual abuse of victims did not establish logical or legal relevance. The circuit court’s intervention in and clarification of a witness’s testimony did not constitute plain error. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Scotty Gene Reynolds 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86624

Family

Texas orders did not require dismissal of Missouri motion to modify child support 
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act presumed that the first state to adjudicate child custody or support retained continuing and exclusive authority over those matters, subject to orders from and discussions with courts of another state, which other states could enforce pending final judgment. Under that law, a Texas court order temporarily modifying child custody supported the circuit court’s dismissal of movant’s motions for access and contempt. Holding otherwise “would create the possibility of inconsistent enforcement of the Texas Order and subvert the purpose of the [act] ‘to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict.’” But the act did not govern child support, so the Texas orders did not support dismissal of movant’s motion to modify child support, and the circuit court erred in dismissing the motion to modify child support. 
(Overview Summary) 
Jennifer L. Schutter vs. Paul J. Seibold
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86995

Health

AG’s MMPA subpoena authority discussed in HIPAA context 
Judgment on the pleadings was due when the face of the pleadings’ allegations showed that a party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The parties agreed that no facts were in dispute. Demands were subject to circuit court orders on petitions to set aside and motions to enforce. In an action to set aside a demand, and a counterclaim to enforce the demand, the circuit court denied the petition. The Merchandising Practices Act constituted a compelling governmental interest and authorized the Attorney General to conduct investigations “in the public interest” by subpoena, called civil investigation demands. Demands generally, like any other administrative subpoena, had to comply with their authorizing statute, and specify documents sought, be not overbroad. As to whether overbreadth included harassment, and whether constitutionally protected privacy was at issue, petitioner abandoned its arguments on appeal. Specifically, demands had to and set forth any statute at issue. Demands could issue to any person, not just a person suspected of violating the act, and did not have to allege any specific violation. Health care services were within the definition of merchandise under the act, and the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts did not have exclusive authority over the sale of health care services. The Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act was not the exclusive authority on transgender practice, so the demands did not breach the separation of powers. Demands could not require production of protected health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act except under a privilege log that secured that act’s protection. The demand met all procedural requirements and expressly sought protected health information only under a privilege log or de-identified. Whether the circuit court sufficiently considered petitioner’s objections and suggested amendments to the demand, petitioner abandoned by failure to raise in a motion to amend. And the failure to produce documents with a privilege log constituted invited error. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region & Southwest Missouri, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, vs. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112842

Probate

Undue influence shown 
The circuit court’s finding of undue influence had support in evidence that beneficiaries controlled testator due to testator’s poor mental health, and secretly met with testator’s lawyer without testator’s knowledge or consultation. Insurance proceeds deposited into a joint deposit with a beneficiary conferred a benefit on the beneficiary, which supported a claim for unjust enrichment. In an action for discovery of assets, when a circuit court found wrongful disposition of assets, the circuit court had authority to award “losses, expenses and damages sustained, if any, but not including attorney fees[.]” The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney fees. 
(Overview Summary) 
Barbara J. Bonin, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Thomas R. Keener, Respondent, v. Janie Gould, Darrin Phillips, and Amanda Phillips, Appellants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112704

Real Estate

Second notice needed for holdover tenant 
The parties’ lease agreement provided conflicting results when a tenant held over, some in the main document, others in an addendum. The addendum stated that it superseded the main document and provided that holdover tenants began a new month-to-month tenancy entitled to a notice to vacate. Appellant tenant had already received notice to vacate, but held over, and so was entitled to further notice. 
(Overview Summary) 
Vanguard Heights d/b/a Sandhurst Apartment Management, Respondent, vs. Haitham Sourakli, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112107