Case summaries for May 26 - June 1, 2023

Criminal | Employment | Employment Security | Personal Injury | Post-Conviction | Workers' Compensation

Criminal

Dismissal reversed  
Rule governing disclosure requires the State “to attempt to locate evidence in the control of other governmental personnel, but … does not require the State to be successful in its efforts [,] only to exercise “diligence and good faith [.]” The State’s efforts met that standard in its repeated efforts to obtain a document that federal law protected from the circuit court’s subpoena authority. And even if a rule violation occurred, the rule prevents surprise at trial, which could not happen with a document that would never be available for trial, so dismissal was too harsh a sanction, and constituted plain error. The disclosure rule also did not support a speedy trial violation, so when the circuit court dismissed the action on that basis, that ruling was also plain error. Judgment of dismissal before trial reversed and remanded for reinstatement of charges.   
State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Rachel Nixon, Respondent.  
(Overview Summary)  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED110548

Dismissal reversed  
Rule governing disclosure requires the State “to attempt to locate evidence in the control of other governmental personnel, but … does not require the State to be successful in its efforts [,] only to exercise “diligence and good faith [.]” The State’s efforts met that standard in its repeated efforts to obtain a document that federal law protected from the circuit court’s subpoena authority. And even if a rule violation occurred, the rule prevents surprise at trial, which could not happen with a document that would never be available for trial, so dismissal was too harsh a sanction, and constituted plain error. The disclosure rule also did not support a speedy trial violation, so when the circuit court dismissed the action on that basis, that ruling was also plain error. Judgment of dismissal before trial reversed and remanded for reinstatement of charges.  
State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Karen A. Quinn, Respondent.  
(Overview Summary)  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED110549

Video of uncharged crime admissible  
No plain error occurred in voir dire when the circuit court did not declare a mistrial sua sponte over the State’s question regarding an organization that, appellant claims, “is a pedophilia advocacy group.” No abuse of discretion occurred when the circuit court entered into the record a video which showed appellant committing an uncharged crime, because that conduct “provide[d] a complete and coherent picture of the events leading up to the acts charged [.]” Victims’ identification of appellant and descriptions of appellant’s conduct were sufficient to support findings that appellant committed the alleged conduct knowingly. When the point relied on and the argument challenge rulings on different motions to sever, neither challenge is preserved for review.   
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JESSE WARREN DEVORE, Appellant  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37598

Harassment conviction affirmed  
On a charge of harassment in the first degree, the elements include the purpose and result of emotional distress to victim. The State showed those elements with victim testimony, relating appellant’s unwelcome touches and comments, and their effect on victim.   
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. BRIAN MATTHEW SMITH, Appellant  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37546

Attempted enticement conviction affirmed  
Statutes provide that enticement of a child means that defendant was 21 years of age or older and solicited sexual conduct from someone 15 years of age or less. An attempt at enticement of a child occurs when the victim is older than 15 years of age. Evidence that the proposed victim initiated a meeting does not negate defendant’s solicitations of sexual conduct and arrival at a hotel for that meeting.  
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. ROBERT JAMES COOPER, Defendant-Appellant  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37542

Employment

Me-too evidence addressed “carefully and deliberately”   
Failure to object to the circuit court’s sua sponte redaction of an exhibit, especially after a clarification of that ruling, preserves on plain error. No error occurred when the circuit court “carefully and deliberately” addressed the hearsay character of me-too evidence, while preserving that evidence as proof of notice to the employer, and sending the evidence to the jury with a limiting instruction.  
Linda Rinehart vs. Missouri Department of Corrections  
(Overview Summary)  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD85112

Employment Security

Error not raised to agency is unpreserved  
When the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission disposes of a claim by dismissal for failure to timely file and does not reach the merits, the Court of Appeals cannot reach the merits. A notice of appeal and brief that addresses the merits, rather than the matter of timely filing, preserves nothing for review. An appellate court will not convict an administrative tribunal of error not raised to the tribunal.   
Logan R. Humphrey, Appellant, vs. Tramar Contracting, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.  
(Overview Summary)  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED111155

Corroborative evidence excluded  
Procedures not challenged before the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission are not subject to appeal, including the conduct of two hearings on one issue, and the absence of a transcript from one of those hearings. Administrative decisions are presumed valid; appellant has the burden of showing otherwise, which appellant did not carry on an allegation that respondent’s protest was late. When an employer defends against a claim with a charge of misconduct connected with work, employer has the burden of proof on that defense, which employer must carry with evidence showing more than grounds for terminating employment. Appellate courts defer to the Commission’s resolution of conflicting testimony, which supported a finding that claimant violated employer’s policy on tardiness, which claimant knew about. Such conduct supported a conclusion that claimant committed misconduct connected with work. Statutes authorize Commission regulations excluding irrelevant or repetitive evidence, which included testimony that did not address the allegations of misconduct, and was merely corroborative of claimant’s testimony.   
Susan Miller vs. Division of Employment Security  
(Overview Summary)  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD85582

Personal Injury

No new trial on grounds already remedied   
Rule provides that an authorized after-trial motion extends the circuit court’s authority. In closing argument, personalization is grounds for a remedy; but, when the circuit court grants the remedy sought, no grounds for any further remedy exists. Therefore, when respondent personalized their closing argument, and appellant sought and received an admonition to the jury, that personalization no longer constituted grounds for a new trial. And no prejudice resulted as shown by the jury’s damage award.   
Anastasia Collier, Respondent, vs. Andrea Steinbach, Appellant.  
(Overview Summary)  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED110937

Post-Conviction

Evidentiary hearing on the merits required  
At movant’s plea hearing, the circuit court asked whether the guilty plea was the result of any threats to movant or loved ones, and movant said no. That did not refute the motion’s allegation that movant felt coerced to plead guilty by plea counsel. The circuit court also found against movant’s allegations on the basis of credibility without an evidentiary hearing. Judgment denying relief vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of movant’s claims.  
ISIS K. SCHAUER, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37458

Workers' Compensation

PTSD award affirmed  
Statutes provide that elements of a claim for mental injury include a cause that is “extraordinary and unusual,” which a claimant showed by evidence of “unique workplace stressors.” For a small-town police force, the murder of an officer was unprecedented, and expert testimony showed that the actual events left claimant with post-traumatic stress disorder. Experts need not be physicians, and substantial and competent evidence supported the award, so the Court of Appeals affirms the award.   
City of Clinton vs. Robert Dahman  
(Overview Summary)  
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD85780