Case summaries for June 20-26, 2025

Appellate | Criminal | Evidence | Family | Personal injury | Probate | Real estate

Appellate

Must challenge all supporting theories 
Statutes allowed termination of parental rights on specified causes, any one of supported termination, and the circuit court found multiple such causes. Each cause found faced the appellant’s challenge on appeal except one. Because the appellant did not challenge that one cause and that one cause supported termination, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with a only modification to the statute’s citation. 
(Overview summary) 
In the Interest of M.C., Juvenile; Juvenile Officer vs. J.C. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87534

Judgment was final though attorney fees were pending 
Motions for attorney fees were not authorized after-trial motions. And, except when a claim’s elements included damages in the form of attorney fees, motions for attorney fees were actions separate from the underlying claim. Therefore, a judgment could be final, even without any ruling on attorney fees paid for in the pleadings. The circuit court issued judgment on all issues in an earlier judgment, except attorney fees, which were the subject of a later judgment. “The pendency of the attorney’s fee issue, and the filing of Defendants’ attorney’s fee motion, did not affect the finality of the [earlier] judgment.” Accordingly, a notice of appeal filed timely from the later judgment, but not from the earlier judgment, secured no jurisdiction over the earlier judgment, and the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as to the earlier judgment. Dismissing the appeal as to the earlier judgment left unchanged the earlier judgment’s prevailing party. The prevailing party was due an attorney fees award by contract as ordered in the later judgment, and the appellant showed no abuse of discretion in the amount awarded, so the Court of Appeals affirmed the later judgment. The Court of Appeals also remanded the action to the circuit court to determine the attorney fees due for the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
WI 909 Walnut, LLC, et al. vs. 909 Walnut Tower, LLC, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87317

Criminal

Inferences discussed
The elements of possessing a controlled substance included awareness of the substance presence and nature. The state entered evidence that the controlled substance dropped from the defendant’s person. That evidence also showed that the defendant possessed the substance before standing up and was trying to conceal the controlled substance, which showed consciousness of substance’s nature. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Jason Michael Puckett 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87301

Predatory sexual offender sentencing discussed 
On charges of statutory rape in the first degree, an exception to the Rape Shield Statute allowed evidence of the victims’ sexual activity to show a source of the victim’s pregnancy as an alternative to the defendant. The defendant had evidence of the victim’s relationship with a third person, but that relationship ended a year before the pregnancy, so it was not relevant as an alternative source of the victim’s pregnancy. Even if the third-party relationship continued, the victim’s pregnancy was not part of the state’s case, and the state had other supporting evidence of guilt. The due process right to a fair trial did not require admitting evidence of the third-party relationship into the record. At sentencing, the circuit court applied the enhancement for predatory sexual offenders, defined as one who “either was previously found guilty of a [named] offense … or previously committed acts that would constitute one of the named offenses[.]” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Dereck L. Turnage 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87113

Child-endangerment conviction affirmed 
Sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction depended on the state’s charge. The state charged child endangerment in the first-degree, the elements of which included “a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years of age.” In support, the state offered “evidence of the bullets’ trajectories and Infant’s close proximity to the gunfire[,]” which was sufficient to deny a motion for acquittal. Invited error was not subject to appellate relief even for plain error. That included the submission of the defendant’s proffered defense-of-others instruction to the jury without sua sponte correction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Marvin Lewis Hill, Jr. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86919

One incident, two offenses, no double jeopardy 
“Double jeopardy does not attach, however, when a defendant is punished for more than one offense arising from the same set of facts,” if a chance to reconsider punctuated the events. Multiple discreet courses of conduct over a seven-day period, and employing different means of injury, constituted separate offenses supporting separate convictions without double jeopardy. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Shane A. Duncan 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86820

Attempted stealing from victim’s person shown 
The elements of attempted stealing included a substantial step toward appropriating something from a victim’s person without consent. The state showed a substantial step toward appropriating money from the victim’s person with evidence that the defendant could not find the victim’s money himself and demanded the victim produce it. “[A] reasonable person could infer that [the defendant] knew he would have to take the money from Victim's person to get it.” 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v ALBERT JAY WRIGHT, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38544

Possession shown 
The elements of possessing a controlled substance included awareness of the substance presence and nature, which the state showed with evidence that the controlled substance dropped from the defendant’s person. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Litel Gilmore, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112724

No plain error review for juror communication 
Pleading for plain error included allegations of a circuit court error that was plain, open, or obvious. Judges could express appreciation for jurors’ service to the jurors after their verdict. The movant did not show that any such conversation affected the circuit court’s sentence. The circuit court’s reference during sentencing to the jury’s “message” meant the jury’s verdict and recommended sentence. Those allegations did not describe any error, and the record included evidence, other than the jury’s recommendation, to support the sentence, so no plain error was due. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian S. Hensley, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112516

Death was not an element
In a claim for expungement of criminal records, the elements included whether death was an element of the offense to be expunged. The offense to be expunged was resisting arrest, of which the elements included a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death. “Risk of” modified both “serious physical injury” and “death,” so death was not an element. The circuit court erred in dismissing the petition.
(Overview summary)
D.Z.G., Appellant, vs. Perry County Prosecuting Attorney, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112836

No basis for enhanced sentence
A witness said that the witness had seen defendant on television, without connecting defendant to any conduct, and the circuit court gave a limiting instruction on that testimony. Those events did not show any error, did not result in prejudice, and did not require a mistrial. A sentencing report’s “vague, unsubstantiated references to . . . prior charges” did not constitute evidence of such offenses on which to enhance defendant’s sentence, but the record showed that the circuit court relied on those statements to enhance defendant’s sentence, which constituted plain error. The Court of Appeals remanded the judgment for re-sentencing, but denied a request for change of judge, because that procedure had to occur in circuit court.
(Overview Summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Desmond Harris, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112670

Evidence

Mental competency analyzed 
Unless ever adjudicated mentally incompetent or presently confined in a mental institution, witnesses were presumptively competent to testify, subject to rebuttal on proof of incapacity caused by mental infirmity. Mental infirmity of the victim was evident in the record, but the defendant did not show that the victim’s infirmity rose to the level of incompetency to testify. Factors included an understanding of truth, a duty to speak truth, and the ability to articulate past events. The circuit court did not err in allowing the victim’s testimony. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Renee M. Collins 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86794

Family

Income imputed 
Though the appellant’s brief departed from the analysis required for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge, was deficient as to its statement of facts, and the facts necessary to resolution appeared in respondent’s brief, the Missouri Court of Appeals reached the appeal’s merits. In calculating a party’s income, circuit courts could impute income to a party who voluntarily reduced their earning capacity, and the record supported such imputation to the appellant. In calculating child support, parochial school expenses could not constitute basic obligations but could constitute extraordinary education expenses, if a party showed an educational need. No educational need appeared in the record, merely one party’s preference, so the Court of Appeals reversed the award as to parochial school tuition. 
(Overview summary) 
Jennifer J. McKenna vs. Steven E. McKenna 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87213

Child support amount must stand on record 
Circuit courts that rejected the parties’ Form 14s had to prepare their own Form 14s based on the record. Circuit court-drafted Forms 14 were presumptively correct subject to a finding that they are “unjust or inappropriate[.]” The circuit court made a record on the amount of child support due. Based on that record, the circuit court rejected the parties’ Form 14s and drafted its own Form 14. It then rejected its own Form 14, without any finding that any amount was unjust or inappropriate, and entered an amount in accordance with an interlocutory order four years old. That ruling constituted a misapplication of law, so the Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment awarding child support in accordance with the circuit court’s Form 14. 
(Overview summary) 
C.A.W., Respondent, vs. N.K.D., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED112725

Income imputed, calculations explained
Circuit courts could impute income to parties whom the courts found underemployed. Such a finding had support in a party’s resignation from, and abandonment, of a lucrative career in favor of self-employment. A property division awarding assets 58/42 was not an abuse of discretion, and the circuit court correctly calculated maintenance and support, in that order.
(Overview Summary)
Joy Janelle McVean, Respondent, vs. Anthony David McVean, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED112557

Personal injury

Affidavit of merit filing deadline applied 
In negligence actions against health care providers, the plaintiffs had to file affidavits supporting the elements of the claim within a time set by statute. The statute also allowed extensions of the time for filing the affidavit, by circuit court order on good cause shown, which showed that the extension was not automatic. The statute further mandated, when the plaintiffs failed to file the affidavit timely, dismissal on the motion of any party. The plaintiff did not timely file the affidavit or procure an extension, so the circuit court did not err in granting the other parties’ motions to dismiss. 
(Overview summary) 
Christopher Shreves, Appellant, vs. Mercy-GoHealth Urgent Care, LLC, et al., Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113000

Directed verdict for defendant affirmed in glyphosate case 
Circuit court’s grant of a motion for directed verdict was subject to appellate review for whether any submissible case for the plaintiff had support in the record, taking only evidence and reasonable inferences that favored the plaintiff, and disregarding that which disfavored the plaintiff. A submissible case for the plaintiff required evidence of causation, which was a matter for expert evidence, linking the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ expert testified that the defendant’s glyphosate product was a “possible risk factor, potential risk factor” in the development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. That testimony did not constitute a mistake, which was subject to clarification by recalling the witness, so the circuit court did not err in denying such recall. The circuit court did not err in holding a party to its stipulation on amounts used in a calculation. The circuit court did not err in restricting the scope of re-direct to matters raised in cross-examination. The evidence, even read most favorably to the plaintiffs, did not support a finding that the defendant’s product caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s condition. A charge of error citing the record, but undeveloped by application of law, was insufficient to support appellate relief. 
(Overview summary) 
Mark McCostlin, and Karen McCostlin, Appellants, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112532

Probate

Appeal from interlocutory order was too late 
The parties were co-guardians and co-conservators seeking to revoke each other’s letters. An order denying relief to appellant, and granting relief to respondent, was subject to appeal as provided generally for judgments. Judgments were generally subject to appeal on notice filed 10 days from finality. Finality for interlocutory orders occurred when the circuit court entered such orders and no after trial motions were authorized to extend that time. Entry of the order appealed was more than 10 days before the appellant filed the notice of appeal, so the notice of appeal vested no jurisdiction in the Missouri Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
In the Matter of Arthur C. Claypoole, Protectee; Janet Ravenscraft vs. Jennifer Claypoole 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86931

Real estate

Constitutionality of additional burdens was a ripe issue 
The constitutionality of any law was subject to challenge, even before enforcement of such law, by an action for declaratory judgment. Declaratory judgment’s elements included a matter that was ripe for judgment. Ripeness was more easily found where legal questions predominated, relevant facts were past events and not future events, like the constitutionality of laws. The plaintiff presented a matter ripe for judgment by alleging that later-enacted provisions for development threatened the plaintiff’s development already approved under earlier provisions. Those allegations fully described an impact of the plaintiff’s business so no further factual development was necessary. The circuit court erred in dismissing the action as unripe for lack of an application under the new provisions’ procedure. 
(Overview summary) 
Claymont Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. City of Wildwood, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112720