Case summaries for May 23-29, 2025

Appellate | Civil | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Family | Insurance | Personal injury | Post-conviction | Workers' compensation

Appellate

Briefing deficiencies required dismissal
A transcript was necessary to rule on the appellant’s arguments. The appellant’s brief had to set forth points relied on with legal reasons for reversal, a statement of facts without argument, and an argument applying law to the facts of her case. The appellant’s brief did not comply with any of those requirements. Unable to determine the merits of the appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
In the Interest of: S.R.W., Juvenile, Janet Rogers-Juvenile Officer vs. T.W.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87157

No ruling, no error 
The elements of plain error included an obvious error by the circuit court. The record showed that the defendant filed an expert’s curriculum vitae in circuit court and a motion for new trial charging error in excluding the expert. But the record did not show that the defendant ever called the expert at trial. Because the defendant did not show that the ruling challenged ever happened, the defendant did not show that any error occurred, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tommie L. McDowell, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112380

No appeal for non-party to consent judgment 
The circuit court denied the appellants’ motion to intervene and issued a consent judgment. Appellate review of that ruling required a sufficient record, which the appellants failed to file, so the Missouri Court of Appeals denied relief. Even if the record were sufficient, the appellants had no standing to appeal a consent judgment. Consent judgments were recitals of the settlement by the parties to an agreement and not judicial resolutions of the parties’ rights. Only jurisdictional grounds supported an appeal, only by a party to the settlement, and only if aggrieved. Aggrievement did not include any effect on options to purchase, because options did not constitute a right until exercised, and the appellants never exercised an option. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appellants’ appeal from the consent judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Delphi Management Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Carl Bearden, et al., Defendants, AJO MO, LLC and Hi-Rise, LLC, Proposed Intervenors/Appellants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112718

Civil

Motion to set aside distinguished from underlying action 
In an underlying action under the Human Rights Act, the defendants received an interlocutory order of default as to liability and, later, a final judgment as to damages. The defendants brought an action to set aside the default judgment for meritorious defense and good cause, which constituted an action separate from the underlying Human Rights action. In such separate actions, rulings were subject to appeal on the issuance of final judgments. Final judgments included denomination as a judgment, or as a decree, and a judge’s signature. In the separate action, the defendants appealed an unsigned order that did not constitute a final judgment, so the Missouri Court of Appeals denied relief. Denying relief as to the separate action mooted an appeal on the merits of the default judgment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and remanded the action to circuit court for a determination of attorney fees incurred on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Charles Harris vs. Department of Corrections, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87060

Contract

Collective bargaining agreement read according to plain language 
Summary judgment was due for a party who established beyond genuine dispute facts entitling that party to a favorable judgment. That included, when the plaintiff had the burden of proof, facts showing that the plaintiff could not establish an element of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant city’s hiring of one of an operator/maintenance mechanic for a vacancy, created by retirement, in the water and sewer department constituted a breach of a collective bargaining agreement governing that department. Collective bargaining agreements were “simply a contract, subject to the same rules of interpretation as other contracts” so “[i]n interpreting a collective bargaining agreement we must construe [provisions] as written, not as we may think they should have been written, and certainly not by interpolating words in them which are not there.” The collective bargaining agreement included a hiring preference for department employees. That described the successful candidate because the agreement expressly contemplated operator/maintenance mechanics, the successful candidate had duties in the water and sewer department, and the successful candidate’s concurrent duties in another department did not change that result. Those facts entitled the city to a ruling that the city had complied with the agreement so the plaintiffs could not show a breach. The circuit court entered summary judgment and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
JAMES SANCHEZ, in his capacity as President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, KEITH ATCHISON, in his capacity as Vice-President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, and QUINTON TILLMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38656

Criminal

Suppression of evidence affirmed 
On motions to suppress evidence obtained by warrant, appellate courts reviewed the rulings of the issuing judges for whether a finding of probable cause had substantial grounds. Substantial grounds could appear in a supporting affidavit alleging criminal activity. The allegation could be based on hearsay if the affidavit set forth a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay but the affidavit at issue set forth no basis at all. The affidavits also alleged the presence of a sexually transmitted disease but did not link the disease to the criminal activity. The remedy for improvident issuance of a warrant was exclusion of evidence procured under the warrant, unless law enforcement officers reasonably relied on the warrant, which the “bare-bones” affidavit did not support. Moreover, the affidavit contained false information on which no officer would rely. “The deliberate inclusion of false information in the warrant application is the exact kind of intentional misconduct meant to be deterred by the exclusionary rule.” The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Israel Barrera 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87670

No self-defense instruction was due 
An instruction on self defense was due when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the defendant, substantial evidence supported each element of self-defense. Those elements included that the defendant was not the initial aggressor and had reasonable grounds to believe that further violence was forthcoming. Because the defendant was choking the victim, the defendant also had to show that death, physical injury, or a forcible felony was happening or imminent. Those elements had no substantial support in the victim’s recanted statement that she swung first, leaving mere retaliation as the defendant’s motive, which was not self-defense. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Brent Roberts 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87346

Incapacity to consent shown 
The elements of rape in the first degree included victim’s lack of capacity to consent, or forcible compulsion, which included substances involuntarily received that induced incapacity to consent. Proving such incapacity did not require expert evidence. Lay witnesses’ testimony about victim’s multiple mental health issues was sufficient. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. William Aaron Thomas, Jr. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87083

Acquittal was not a finding of fact 
The witnesses’ prior false allegations of statutory rape were admissible for impeachment. On the victim’s earlier accusation of statutory rape, a jury found the defendant not guilty. “A verdict of not guilty, an acquittal, on a criminal charge does not prove that the defendant is innocent, nor is it a ‘finding of any fact,’” so the defendant did not show that the accusation was false. The circuit court did not err in excluding evidence of the earlier verdict. “The treating physician is first and foremost a fact witness, as opposed to an expert witness[,] and victim’s therapist testified only as a fact witness to what the therapist saw and heard without comment on credibility. No plain error occurred when the circuit court did not intervene sua sponte to bar that testimony.” 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. STEVEN LEWIS BROWN, JR., Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38351

Intent shown 
The elements of first-degree burglary to commit another offense included intent. The intent to commit kidnapping in the first degree had support in evidence of the defendant’s “erratic and demanding behavior,” including forcible intrusions into the victim’s residence, demands to accompany the defendant, and forcible lunges at victim. The defendant’s underlying purpose, to rescue a third party from “being eaten by werewolves[,]” did not change that result. The circuit court denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard E. Calvin, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112566

No speedy trial violation shown 
Constitutional provisions required a speedy trial in criminal actions and whether a speedy trial occurred depended on multiple factors. A 1.6-year delay was presumptively prejudicial. But the defendant’s delay in asserting the right and additional delays ought or agreed to by the defendant, without a showing of prejudice, weighed against the defendant’s argument. Evidence of a protective order against defendant, as yet unserved, was probably inadmissible even as res gestae. But overwhelming evidence of guilt negated any prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined to review cumulative evidence for plain error. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Stephen Wiley, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112330

Prosecutorial vindictiveness refuted 
A delay of 790 days presumptively violated the defendant’s right to a speedy trial but the defendant’s life sentence negated prejudice and research generally connecting convictions to pre-trial delay was unpersuasive. Constitutional rights included protection from retaliation against the exercise of constitutional rights, like increasing a charge for seeking a jury trial. “[T]he prosecutor’s juvenile belligerence” did not, alone show vindictiveness and sufficient evidence supporting an increased degree of offense negated vindictiveness. A video recording slowed down to show the offense was relevant and the circuit court’s “adroitly imposed conditions” diminished prejudice. The state’s acquittal-first argument constituted obvious error, and the circuit court did not intervene sua sponte, but overwhelming evidence of guilt negated any manifest injustice. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tyrone Williams, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112252

Competency procedure was sufficient 
The defendant’s delay in citing the right to a speedy trial and lack of prejudice showed that no violation of that right occurred. The state had to prove that the defendant’s waiver of trial counsel was unequivocal, timely, knowing, and intelligent. The state did so by showing that the defendant had substantial experience with the criminal justice system, refused to read the written form, refused to sign the written form, a did not retain counsel. The defendant showed no omission in the Faretta hearing sufficient to render a waiver less than knowing and intelligent. No pre-trial hearing on competency was necessary, unless an evaluation was contested, which did not happen. The State’s evidence of what defendant said and did not say after arrest did not violate defendant’s right to remain silent. No pre-sentence competency evaluation was necessary without a change from the earlier evaluation, which the defendant did not show. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre J. Cothran, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112122

Terry stop exceeded when pockets emptied
Constitutional provisions allowed a Terry stop: when law enforcement officers had “specific and articulable facts [supporting] a reasonable suspicion that a person has or is about to commit a crime [,]”officers could stop such persons to investigate and pat down—or more if circumstances require—the persons for the officers’ safety. A Terry stop was not “a general exploratory search for whatever evidence of criminal activity he might find.” During a traffic stop, defendant passenger told a law enforcement officer that defendant might have a knife in her pocket. Rather than pat defendant down, the officer ordered defendant to empty her pockets, revealing contraband. The State did not show—and did not argue in circuit court—that the discovery of contraband was inevitable in a pat-down.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant vs. DENISE MARGARET LAFFERTY, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38750

Employment

Causation shown 
The Human Rights Act barred retaliation for refusing to comply with unlawful discrimination in the workplace and allowed an action for such retaliation. The elements of such a claim included causation between the refusal to comply and the retaliatory conduct, which the plaintiff showed directly with statements that the plaintiff’s truthful testimony led to the plaintiff’s termination; and circumstantially, with evidence that employer skipped the usual steps when terminating plaintiff, and that a proffered cause for termination was pretextual. The circuit court did not err in applying a multiplier to the lodestar amount for attorney fees after considering that counsel’s fee was contingent on prevailing and that counsel’s work precluded other less risky work. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for a determination of attorney fees incurred on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Danny Petifurd vs. Missouri Department of Corrections 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87416

Attorney fees award affirmed 
In an underlying action under the Human Rights Act, the defendants received an interlocutory order of default as to liability and, later, a final judgment as to damages. The plaintiffs brought a separate action for attorney fees, which constituted an action separate from the underlying Human Rights action, and received an award by final judgment. The defendants appealed that award and the judgment in the underlying Human Rights action. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of the Human Rights judgment, so the plaintiff remained the prevailing party, which entitled the plaintiff to the award of attorney fees. The circuit court affirmed the award and remanded the action to the circuit court for a determination of attorney fees incurred on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Charles Harris vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87383

Family

Sole physical custody affirmed 
Joint physical custody with equivalent parenting time was presumed to be in the best interests of the children, subject to specified factors. Evidence relevant to such factors included appellant’s paranoiac and controlling behavior, removal from family contacts including appellant’s side, and threats of dilatory legal tactics. Relevant evidence of abuse was not limited to violence against the children but included abuse against respondent, which was especially probative when it occurred in the children’s presence. The circuit court’s award of sole physical custody to respondent did not misapply the law and was not against the weight of the evidence. 
(Overview summary) 
In Re: The Marriage of Brian L. Campbell vs. Shelbie E. Campbell 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87402

Insurance

Assault and battery exclusion applied 
In actions for equitable garnishment, plaintiffs had to show that they had judgments within an insurance policy’s coverage and the defendants had the burden to show exclusions. An exclusion in the defendant’s general liability policy removed all but optional limited coverage for injuries resulting from assault and battery. In the underlying action for battery, the jury found that the defendant acted in self-defense, but that finding did not negate the occurrence of a battery. The circuit court did not err in applying the battery exclusion and finding that only the limited optional coverage was due. Negligent failure to prevent the battery did not constitute a concurrent proximate cause because concurrent proximate cause meant a separate and independent source of injury, and the plaintiff alleged that the negligence caused the battery. 
(Overview summary) 
Kristy Richards vs. The Bunkhouse Bar & Grill, LLC, and The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87349

Personal injury

Glyphosate verdict affirmed 
Federal laws did not pre-empt a product liability action in circuit court. Rulings on evidence were subject to review for abuse of discretion and outcome-determinative prejudice. The "special potency" of judicial opinions carried “undue weight” with jurors, meriting consideration in determining their legal relevance, but did not categorically bar them. Defendant did object based on logical relevance. A judicial opinion was helpful to the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, and to understanding other documents discussing the safety of the defendant’s product, so the circuit court did not err in admitting the opinion into evidence. The expert’s testimony about the opinion was cumulative and therefore not prejudicial. The defendants waived an undisclosed opinion objection to an expert’s testimony, quantifying the danger of defendant’s product, by offering the expert’s exhibits into evidence and objecting untimely. And “[defendant]'s blistering cross-examination” of the expert showed that no prejudice resulted. The record supported a finding of the conduct that supported awards of punitive damages, and the ratios of punitive to actual damages were not excessive. Whether awards of punitive damages duplicated awards of actual damages was a mixed matter of law and fact. As to a credit for amounts paid based on the same conduct found in other cases, such a credit was barred when defendant continued its conduct after actual notice of danger. The defendant received a reduction in punitive damages as requested from the circuit court and did not show that remaining amounts were disproportionate. The Missouri Court of Appeals did not rule on challenges that the defendant did not preserve and that cited rulings not made. 
(Overview summary) 
Daniel Anderson, Jimmy Draeger and Brenda Draeger, Valorie Gunther vs. Monsanto Company 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87059

Post-conviction

No final judgment 
A judgment that rules on less than all claims as to all parties was generally not subject to appeal. The movant made two charges of misadvice, and the parties tried both, but the circuit court ruled on only one without certifying no just reason for delay. The judgment was therefore not final, and not subject to appeal, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Victor D. Vickers, Jr. vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87435

Overwhelming evidence of guilt refuted prejudice 
The elements of a claim for ineffective assistance of council included counsel’s substandard performance resulting in prejudice in the form of a finding of guilt, so overwhelming evidence of guilt refuted such claims. The movant’s “acts of physical intimidation” including a hidden hand that multiple witnesses believed held a weapon constituted overwhelming evidence that movant was guilty of kidnapping. 
(Overview summary) 
Ryan Anthony Tatham vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87280

No juror bias shown 
Relatives of assistant prosecuting attorneys were barred from juries, and when an actually biased venire person serves on the jury, trial counsel’s performance was presumptively substandard. But a venire person’s sibling in the prosecuting attorney’s office did not — alone — establish bias, even when that assistant prosecuting attorney appeared in pre-trial proceedings. The movant did not show any actual bias in any venire person so the movant showed no prejudice. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the exclusion of cumulative hearsay on an unpreserved theory, or as plain error, because such challenges would not have been meritorious so no prejudice resulted. 
(Overview summary) 
Mark C. Brandolese vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86710

No relief on points directly appealed 
In the underlying criminal action, the circuit court found that the movant’s earlier convictions made the movant a persistent misdemeanor offender. On direct appeal of a conviction, the Missouri Court of Appeals found no plain error in that ruling. In the motion, the movant claimed that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to argue that the movant’s earlier convictions did not make the movant defendant a persistent misdemeanor offender, citing a later change in law. That claim did not show that the movant’s case was among the small number of cases where a ruling that was not plain error might still undermine confidence in the verdict. The circuit court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
JORDAN C. HADEN, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38441

No need to raise expired challenge to certification as an adult 
On a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the movants had to show that counsel’s substandard performance changed the outcome of the underlying criminal action. Appellate counsel was not ineffective when appellate counsel chose the claims that maximized the chances of success. The circuit court certified the movant for prosecution as an adult. At the time of that ruling, case law held that certifications were not subject to appeal. Then case law changed that holding and held that certifications were subject to appeal. But that change in case law did not revive challenges to certifications and the movant’s time for appeal had already expired so an appeal would have been untimely and meritless. The movant also failed to show how or why a challenge to certification would have been successful. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
(Overview summary) 
Glenn B. Mansfield, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112799

Workers’ compensation

Courts defer to commission’s disability rating 
The Missouri Court of Appeals deferred to all findings of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission supported by the record. In a claim for benefits from the Second Injury Fund, the elements included permanent and total disability resulting from a later injury and an earlier injury that met specified qualifications. The qualifications included a disability rating, which was a factual matter committed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission “regardless of stipulations by the parties or specific rating percentages assigned by a testifying doctor.” The commission denied benefits and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. 
(Overview summary) 
Jeremy Jarvis, Appellant, v. Treasurer of the State of Missouri - Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113075