Case summaries for May 8-14, 2026

Appellate | Criminal | Elections | Orders of protection | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Real estate

Appellate

Appellant’s deficient brief required dismissal
Missouri appellate courts must hold pro se appellants to the rules of appellate procedure to preserve judicial neutrality. The appellants’ brief failed to comply with the rules governing the jurisdictional statement, statement of facts, points relied on, arguments, appendix and certification of compliance. After notice and opportunity to correct, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary)
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Respondent, v. Bobbie S. Jones and Ronice Porter, Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113556

Criminal

Refraining from a sua sponte objection endorsed 
Whether to review the events in circuit court for plain error was committed to the appellate courts’ discretion, and appellate courts expected circuit courts to refrain from participating in the defense. That included refraining from sua sponte objections, especially since the absence of an objection from the defendant might have been strategic. Such was the case with a State witness’s testimony: the defense counsel did not object so that the defense counsel could use that testimony against the witness on cross-examination. On those facts, the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. “Sentences of life and 999 years 'are materially different because, among other reasons, they have a different effect in determining parole eligibility dates.’” The Court of Appeals remanded the action for an order nunc pro tunc conforming the written sentence to the spoken sentence. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Tracy L. Homer
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87970

Manslaughter conviction affirmed 
Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence failed whenever a case was submissible. A submissible case of manslaughter in the second degree included criminal negligence. Criminal negligence included being unaware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist, or a result will follow, when such failure constituted a gross deviation from the standard of that which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. That described stealing a firearm from its owner and the ensuing struggle with the owner. The owner’s death when shot by the defendant’s confederate did not constitute an intervening cause that negated causation. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Mekhi Donnell Curry
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87621

Impeachment with post-arrest silence was okay 
“Uninvited interference by the trial judge in trial proceedings . . . invites trial error.” For that reason, refraining from sua sponte objection seldom resulted in plain error. The reading of Miranda rights assured the defendants that the State would not use post-arrest silence against them, even as impeachment; but without a reading of Miranda rights, there was no such assurance, so impeachment with post-arrest silence was possible. During such brief isolated instances of such impeachment, the circuit court did not intervene sua sponte, which did not constitute plain error. Jailhouse telephone records, authenticated by affidavit, were admissible, especially after extensive testimony by the affiant. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Ivan D. Mock
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87365

Instruction negated prejudice
In closing argument, the State attempted to describe reasonable doubt. The remark was brief and isolated, so no mistrial was necessary. And the circuit court gave the jury the approved instruction on reasonable doubt, which raised a presumption that the jury followed it, and “cures any harm from an erroneous statement of reasonable doubt by the prosecutor.” Also, the jurors acquitted on one charge, showing that the State’s argument did not mislead them and that they carefully considered the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but remanded the action to conform the judgment as written to the judgment as spoken.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ALDO JAVIER MUNGUIA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38679

Elections

Referendum petition did not suspend congressional re-districting legislation 
The procedures for a referendum petition included the number of signatures necessary, methods for verifying signatures, certification as to sufficiency of the petition, and judicial review of the certification. Nothing in those provisions suspended legislation on the filing of the petition alone. Legislation altering congressional districts had an effective date, but a timely filed petition for a referendum on that bill rendered the effective date indeterminate. If the petition was not sufficient, the legislation became effective as usual. If the petition was sufficient, the legislation became effective only on approval by vote of the electorate and without the governor’s signature. Insofar as the certification process was still pending, no further conclusion was possible. The circuit court ordered that the filing of the petition alone did not suspend the legislation, and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Jake Maggard, et al., Appellants, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC101581

Congressional re-districting was okay 
The Missouri General Assembly had to legislate the State into congressional districts that were contiguous, compact, and equal in population; each as much “as may be.” In actions for injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs had the burden to show that the General Assembly “plainly and palpably [,]” “clearly and undoubtedly [,]” failed to meet that standard. To be compact was to present a “closely united territory [,]” which statistics, geographic boundaries, political subdivision boundaries, and other measures helped the circuit court to determine. Appellate courts did not re-weigh the evidence. The legislation improved on earlier legislation in significant matters like splitting municipalities. Communities of interest were not determinative. “[T]he existence of good faith in the legislature or lack thereof” and “the subjective policy preferences of the legislature and Appellants related to population density” were not relevant. Alternatives that improved compactness did not show lack of compactness. The plaintiffs presented no evidence on contiguity and population of a voting tabulation district. The circuit court held that the plaintiffs did not carry their burden of proof and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Elizabeth Healey, et al., Appellants, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents. and Terrence Wise, et al., Appellants, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC101570

Orders of protection

No alarm, no stalking 
“There are two bases for an order of protection in Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act: (1) domestic violence [,] and (2) stalking.” The former required evidence of specified familial relationships. The latter required evidence of alarm, meaning an objective and subjective fear of physical harm. No such evidence appeared in the record. Evidence that the appellant was the respondent’s future mother-in-law, and entered the residence of respondent and appellant’s son while they were absent, was no substitute. The circuit court abused its discretion in entering a full order of protection. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and vacated the full order of protection. 
(Overview summary)
A.D.S., Respondent, v. T.L.M., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113953

Violation of order constituted burglary 
The elements of burglary in the first degree as charged included unlawfully entering a building with the intent of committing an offense in that building. The offense alleged was violation of an ex parte protective order. Insofar as the defendant knew that the order barred him from the building, the defendant knew he had to violate the order to enter the building. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. John S. Kelly, Jr., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113267

Personal injury

No official immunity for police non-emergency operation of patrol car 
Parties were entitled to a summary judgment when they established, beyond genuine dispute, facts in the summary judgment record entitling them to a favorable ruling. The summary judgment record consisted of allegations of material fact in numbered paragraphs, the responses to those numbered paragraphs, and respective citations to admissible evidence. Official immunity protected government employees from any suit when exercising discretion in the performance of official duties without malice. The summary judgment record showed that, when it struck the plaintiff’s decedent, the defendant police officer was operating a patrol car in a non-emergency situation. Non-emergency operation of a patrol car “does not involve policymaking or the exercise of professional expertise and judgment” so it was not within official immunity. Allegations that the defendant was acting in an emergency pursuit appeared only in the motion and a memorandum, which was not part of the summary judgment record. The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that judgment and remanded the action for further proceedings. 
(Overview summary)
Willie Jackson, Appellant, v. Preston Marquart, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113388

Post-conviction

No duty to seek ruling in limine 
The circuit courts had to appoint post-conviction counsel and to notify post-conviction counsel of that appointment; the appointment was ineffective until such notice, and only then did the time for filing an amended motion or statement in lieu begin to run. The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel included prejudice from deficient performance. In strategic matters, courts did not second-guess counsel. The trial counsel’s duty to investigate did not require the trial counsel to file a motion in limine testing a defense. The trial counsel employed a battered spouse defense to offer evidence otherwise inadmissible on other defenses. To seek a ruling in limine on the defense’s applicability would not have furthered that strategy, so the trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for seeking such a ruling in limine. The circuit court denied relief on that theory, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment as to that ruling. The counsel never had to advance meritless claims, like insufficient evidence, when evidence supported each element of an offense as charged. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for kidnapping, so the appellate counsel was not ineffective when choosing not to argue otherwise. Whether that evidence varied from the charging instrument did not alter that result. "Missouri courts have repeatedly rejected sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims that are disguised variance claims.” The circuit court granted relief on that theory and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment as to that ruling and reinstated the movant’s sentence. 
(Overview summary)
Teresa Colby a/k/a Teresa Dawn Colby Weter vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87781 consolidated with WD87828

Date of sentencing determined filing of motions 
The date on which the circuit court sentenced the movant determined the time to file for the initial motion and the amended motion “, regardless of any later amendments.” The initial motion was timely but the appointed counsel filed the amended motion late. On those facts, the circuit court had to conduct an inquiry into whether the appointed counsel abandoned the movant, the result of which determined whether the circuit court had authority to rule on the amended motion or the initial motion. But the circuit court did not conduct such an inquiry and ruled on the amended motion. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action for the circuit court to conduct its inquiry into abandonment. 
JACKIE LEON LIGHT, JR., Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD39030

Real estate

Award of costs affirmed in inverse condemnation 
Constitutional provisions required just compensation when the State took private property, including when a political subdivision unintentionally damaged such property, which constituted an inverse condemnation. Condemnation actions could include an award of costs, and the statute authorizing such an award showed an intention to link the award to the constitutional requirement. The plaintiff property owners showed that the defendant sewer district had notice of multiple backups and failed to take corrective action. Sovereign immunity protected the district from liability in tort actions, not constitutional condemnation actions. The circuit court awarded costs and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Driven Development, LLC, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Saint Louis Sewer District, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113300