Case summaries for July 5-11, 2024

Administrative | Civil | Constitutional | Criminal | Evidence | Personal injury | Post-conviction

Administrative

Minimum contacts discussed
Like any judicial tribunal, an administrative tribunal could only act with jurisdiction over the person, which required an agency showing of minimum contacts “among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” In an action to enforce securities laws, the commissioner of securities showed appellant corporation, and one appellant corporate officer through personal participation, contracted with Missouri residents for a term of years through a broker. And the contracts constituted securities under the Family Resemblance Test: Those appellants expressly sold promissory notes under a plan of distribution to plan of distribution to a wide range of unsophisticated investors who were looking for a profit. Also, the notes were subject to no secured interest other than the investments themselves and the notes were subject to no other regulation. Therefore, as to those appellants, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment that affirmed the commissioner’s decision. But, for another appellant corporate officer, no such participation appeared in the record. “[I]t is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him” and that conduct must relate to the administrative action. Therefore, as to that other appellant, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s affirmance of the commissioner’s decision. The Court of Appeals entered judgment accordingly.
(Overview summary)
Dennis R. Di Ricco; Golden Genesis, INC. d/b/a Nuplasma; Thomas F. Casey vs. Missouri Commissioner of Securities, Et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86327 consolidated with WD86329 and WD86330)

Civil

Appeal from special order explained
Circuit court jurisdiction was plenary, subject only to limitations on subject matter and over the person, so a judgment in an earlier action — even an erroneous judgment — was subject to remedy only by direct appeal and not by collateral attack through appeal of a judgment in a later action. Collateral estoppel also barred re-litigation of the earlier judgment’s ruling in the later action. A ruling that revived a judgment did not constitute a default judgment, even when defendant defaulted, because the ruling was not a judgment; the ruling was a special order after final judgment because it related to enforcement of the judgment. A special order after final judgment was subject to appeal, after 30 days for authorized after-trial motions, like a judgment.
(Overview summary)
Christal Allen vs. X&F Enterprise Corp.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86536

Constitutional

Sovereign immunity barred challenge to constitutionality
Statutes provided that court costs in criminal actions include surcharges delivered into specified funds. In an action for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of those statutes. The plaintiff brought the action against defendants the treasurer and the director of revenue, for whom statute provided sovereign immunity from suit, tort or otherwise, without any waiver express or implied. The circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants.
(Overview summary)
Benjamin Ramirez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, vs. Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys' & Circuit Attorneys' Retirement System, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100376

Criminal

Expungement procedure and defenses explained
In an action for expungement of convictions, statutes required the petition to name the Missouri Highway Patrol as a defendant, and required notice of any hearing on the petition, which showed that the Missouri Highway Patrol had standing to oppose the petition. And any defendant could oppose the petition on any basis appearing in any statute even if not pleaded. Those bases included a lifetime limit of one felony per person, consisting of one charging instrument or one “course of criminal conduct.” A course of criminal conduct cohered around criminal conduct only, so intervening non-criminal conduct severed the course. Two months, including 25 days in jail, severed defendant’s methamphetamine manufacturing into two separate courses of conduct, so the circuit court did not err in expunging one conviction and not the other.
(Overview summary)
D.B. vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information Services, Buchanan County Prosecuting Attorney(s), Circuit Attorney(s)
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86542

Evidence

Adverse inference from absence of witness peculiarly available to the defense was okay
The prosecution asked defendant about defendant being the sole witness to testify about certain events. Whether the prosecution could raise an adverse inference from the defense’s failure to call a witness depended on whether the witness was equally available to both parties, or peculiarly available to the defense, the latter of which included a witness whose testimony would favor the defendant. To raise an adverse inference did not constitute a shift in the burden of proof so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defense’s objection to the questioning. In closing argument, the prosecution argued that an acquittal meant that victim deserved to die. The context of that argument was defendant’s self-defense theory so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defense’s objection.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. JEREMY DAMON GUEST, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37691

Personal injury

No roving commission in opioid addiction case
The two-year limitation on health care malpractice actions is subject to an exception for continuing care that tolls the statute until the physician-patient relationship ends or the relevant condition ceases. Such a terminating event caused the action to lapse against a physician but not against the physician’s employer when the employer’s other employees continued to provide care to plaintiff. A statute provided that an expert could base an opinion on published standards, and the circuit court could allow disclosure of such standards to the jury when legally relevant, even if those standards were inadmissible hearsay. An objection to an instruction as was “vague and ambiguous” does not preserve error as to a roving commission. A roving commission is an instruction that sets forth the claimant’s theory, but does not specify the allegations to which it applies, sending the jury to rove through the evidence for an allegation to which the jury chooses to apply the theory. Limiting language could “prevent the jury from potentially conflating nonactionable facts with ultimate, actionable facts.” Overprescription was the ultimate fact and specific incidents were evidentiary detail. A challenge to a roving commission inherently included a charge of prejudice. Punitive damages were available only on a clear and convincing evidence of the defending party’s “complete indifference to or in conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.” “[T]he conduct must be such that injury is its natural and probable consequence.” No evidence of “extraordinarily high” culpability supported an award of punitive damages so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that award.
GREGORY FROST, Respondent vs. PCRMC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., D/B/A PHELPS HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37969

Post-conviction

No need to appeal credibility determination
In the underlying criminal matter, movant a motion to suppress incriminating statements made during a custodial interrogation, alleging that his waiver of Miranda Rights was not voluntary. The circuit court determined that movant’s allegations were not credible and denied the motion to suppress. Appellate counsel chose not to appeal that ruling, because an appellate court would defer to the circuit court’s credibility determination, rendering such an appeal meritless and counsel’s choice soundly strategic. The circuit court had no duty to ensure that the amended motion included all of movant’s claims and plain error review is not available on appeal from a judgment on post-conviction relief.
CHRIS COURTOIS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38185

No need to offer cumulative evidence
The elements of a claim for ineffective counsel include substandard performance and resulting prejudice. Counsel’s performance was presumptively reasonable and effective. Movant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to offer medical and mental health records in support of concurrent sentencing; but trial counsel did seek concurrent sentencing and offered the records during the guilt phase. That rendered the records cumulative evidence, which counsel never had to offer. Prejudice meant reasonably likely outcome-determinative. The circuit court on the motion and the underlying criminal action were the same, and noted specifically that it considered the records in sentencing, which negated any prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but sua sponte remanded for correction of the sentencing order nunc pro tunc.
JOHN MICHAEL HOUSE, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38108