Case summaries for July 4-10, 2025

Evidence | Civil | Constitutional | Criminal | DWI | Family | Miscellaneous actions | Real estate | Workers' compensation

Evidence

Burden of proof did not shift 
Benefits were for persons unemployed through no fault of their own, so defenses to a claim included misconduct connected with work, which included violations of rules under certain conditions. Those conditions were inapplicable when the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found that no violation occurred. “[T]o get to this determination, we would have to agree with [the employer] that [the claimant] violated an employer’s rule, which we do not. Here, the Commission had no reason to reach this analysis because the Commission concluded that [the claimant] did not commit misconduct in any form. Accordingly, the burden never shifted to [the claimant] to establish that a statutory exception applied.” 
(Overview summary) 
Vendtech-SGI, LLC vs. David Benham and Division of Employment Security
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87676

Civil

Jury note-taking discussed 
Circuit courts had to permit jurors to take notes on a party’s request, but the appellant showed no such request, including a proffered instruction and a motion for new trial. Motions for attorney fees, though filed in one action, constituted separate actions, so the grant or denial of attorney fees was subject to appeal only on final judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
Dorothy Mukanjiri vs. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86748 consolidated with WD86754

Constitutional

Commissioners discussed 
Parties must raise constitutional issues at their first opportunity. In circuit court, the appellant did not object to a decision made by a judge on evidence heard only by a commissioner. The appellant therefore waived that matter on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
In the Interest of: J.J.G., Jr. vs. Juvenile Officer 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87140

Criminal

Bail bond recovery went too far 
The appellant was a licensed surety recovery agent searching for a fugitive. Finding a residence where the fugitive was, the appellant persuaded someone to open the front door, then pushed his way in and held a resident at gunpoint without obtaining consent or disclosing a warrant. On certain criminal charges, process servers and peace officers were entitled to special negative defenses but that did not apply to the appellant. Even if it did, the appellant’s “outrageous” conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. No exception for a merely incidental restraint applied. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for third-degree kidnapping and unlawful use of a weapon. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. David Shawn Williams 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87347

Propensity versus intent 
On charges of sodomy, statutory sodomy, and incest against the victim by deviate sexual intercourse, evidence of the defendant’s sexual activities with the defendant’s spouse was not admissible as character evidence. But such evidence, duly limited, was logically and legally relevant to show motive and intent of sexual gratification, which was an element of the offenses as charged. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. John Leland Phelps 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86308

Defense of others instruction was not due 
Plain error was rare in jury instructions. Deadly force in defense of others was permissible only on “immediate” danger of death or other serious bodily harm. The defendant recanted the only evidence offered to support an instruction on defense of others, and that evidence showed no immediate threat, so the circuit court did not err in failing to offer an instruction on defense of others sua sponte. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review and affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Christopher L. Bolden, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112413

DWI

Elements of municipal offense inferred 
Drivers were subject to enhanced sentences for earlier intoxication-related offenses. Driver’s earlier municipal conviction was for “driving while intoxicated.” That recitation was sufficient to support an inference that the elements of the municipal offense included driving, as currently defined, and no evidence of the municipal ordinance’s language was necessary. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JAMES WILLIS PETERS, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38673

Family

Record supported parenting plan 
“[G]reater deference than other decisions” was due the rulings of circuit courts on child custody. Child custody decisions were subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion might not occur even when the record did not “clearly preponderate in favor of either parent” so, when the evidence could support a determination for either party, appellate courts affirmed the circuit court’s determination. Factors that guided custody determinations included the parents’ proposals, the child’s relationships and contacts with parents and other family, the child’s adjustment to social settings, relocation issues, and the well-being of all individuals involved. On each factor, substantial evidence supported the circuit court’s rulings, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary) 
S.P.S., by their next friend, E.W.S., and E.W.S., individually, Respondents, vs. K.A.E., Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113100

Miscellaneous actions

Towing statutes discussed 
Statutes governed how to acquire title to, and dispose of, a towed vehicle. Those statutes required the tower to give notice of how to regain possession of the vehicle to the owner, as determined by the Missouri Department of Revenue’s records or other good faith effort, and sell the vehicle to a designated buyer for destruction only. The record supported a finding that the appellant tower did not comply with those requirements because the appellant relied on police reports suggesting that a dealer was the owner, even though the dealer’s insurer had acquired title to the vehicle; and the appellant sold the vehicle on Facebook Marketplace. The record also supported the damages as awarded. 
(Overview summary) 
Motors Insurance Corporation vs. Autobot Towing, LLC 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87590

Real estate

Declarations unambiguous, enforcement not waived, attorney fees awarded 
The law favored unrestricted use of property. Nevertheless, homeowner association declarations constituted contracts and so were subject to the same principles, including the application of plain language without resort to canons of construction. The appellant association’s declarations plainly required any fence to start at the corner of respondent owner’s lot, which the record showed that the respondents understood, and provided that a lapse of enforcement did not constitute a waiver of enforcement. Therefore, the circuit court erred in considering the respondent’s lot subject to different treatment based on “unique” characteristics. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action, with directions to award attorney’s fees and court costs on appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Bellemeade Homeowners Association, Appellant, vs. Tyler Taylor, et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112825

Workers’ compensation

Pre-existing injury did not qualify
In a claim against the Second Injury Fund for permanent total disability, the elements included a pre-existing condition of a specified severity. That severity did not include any additional disability awarded to account for the cumulative effect of multiple injuries in permanent partial disability because such awards were eliminated by statutory amendments. Without that enhancement, claimant did not qualify claimant for an award from the fund. 
(Overview summary) 
Patrick Ryan, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112149