Case summaries for July 11-17, 2025

Appellate | Criminal | Education | Employment | Family | Post-conviction | Probate

Appellate

No appeal from consent judgment 
In circuit court, the appellant contested respondents’ standing to bring their action, lost on that issue, and opted against further litigation and an appeal on that issue. Instead, the appellant chose to enter into a consent judgment. Appeal from a judgment was available to any party aggrieved by the judgment. No judgment could aggrieve any party when the party requested that judgment. Because the appellant had no standing to appeal a circuit court ruling, appellate courts had no jurisdiction to review such a ruling, even if the ruling addressed the respondent’s standing to seek relief in circuit court. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. 
(Overview summary) 
Jerry Carl and Beth (Elizabeth) Steele vs. Jordan Hartman 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87506

Criminal

Witness tampering conviction affirmed 
The elements of tampering with a witness included a purpose of influencing the witness’s conduct, which the state showed with evidence that the defendant threatened a witness. “We defer to the jury’s decision to draw this reasonable inference from the evidence.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Robert Beck 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87256

No cross-reference instruction, no plain error 
“Even clear and obvious instructional error rarely works a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice demanding plain-error reversal.” When instructions on the justifications of self-defense and defense of others were due, cross-references to those justifications had to appear in verdict directors, but the cross-references were not in the verdict directors. But the parties argued the justifications, and the circuit court gave the instructions on the justification, so no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice occurred. The appellant’s point was multifarious, but the Missouri Court of Appeals and the state understood the issues, so the Court of Appeals reviewed the point ex gratia. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. BOBBY GENARO FOREMAN, JR., Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38252

Unanimous jury necessary for enhanced sentence 
The elements of first-degree included an intent to cause serious physical injury. The appellant did not show plain error in the omission of a definition for serious physical injury because the appellant showed no effect on the verdict and such intent was subject to inference from evidence that the defendant stopped briefly before striking victim with a car. The constitutionality of a statute was within the Supreme Court of Missouri’s exclusive jurisdiction, unless unpreserved, in which case the Missouri Court of Appeals could opine. Error could be plain on appellate review even if it was not plain at trial. Trial courts plainly erred when imposing unauthorized sentences. Sentences were subject to enhancement for persistent offender status, defined by earlier convictions, which were matters of fact for a jury’s unanimous determination on a preponderance of the evidence. That principle applied retroactively to all cases in which appeal was not final. The Court of Appeals remanded the action for a jury determination on persistent offender status and re-sentencing. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. John D. Otis, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112475

State violated order in limine, no prejudice shown 
On a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon in possession, the circuit court ordered in limine no reference to the contemporaneous shooting with the firearm, but the state “repeatedly and “blatantly” violated that order. Such “arguably cynical” violations “disturb[ed]” the Missouri Court of Appeals, but evidence of guilt was overwhelming, so the appellant showed no outcome-determinative effect on the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Leroy M. Holloway, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112269

Education

No claim against individuals under Campus Free Expression Act 
The Campus Free Expression Act addressed non-commercial speech, and provided private causes of action for violations, but did not specify against whom. “It cannot, as [the plaintiff] contends, be read as a directive to every member of the general public not to interfere with such activities.” Because the act set forth the authority of universities only, only universities were subject to the act, including private causes of actions. The circuit court did not err in dismissing claims against individual officials in their individual capacities. As to the defendant university, the appellant cited the materials related to the statement of undisputed material facts but failed to reference the numbered paragraphs themselves, so the appellant did not show error in summary judgment for the defendant. 
(Overview summary) 
Richard Hershey, Appellant, vs. The Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113004

Employment

Law enforcement officers’ bill of rights discussed 
Orders denying motions for new trial were not subject to appeal but appellate courts treated such appeals as appeals from final judgments. Appellate courts reviewed dismissals for failure to state a claim de novo. The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights set forth procedural rights for peace officers employed by the state and its political subdivisions or institutions of higher education, but not by private institutions. The plaintiff alleged that a benevolent corporation employed the plaintiff, which did not describe facts that afforded the plaintiff those protections when the institution fired the plaintiff. Whether the institution constituted a public entity, because a county deputized plaintiff, was a mere legal conclusion that courts need not take as true. The circuit court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s petition for failure to state a claim. 
(Overview summary) 
Robert Wayne, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The Washington University d/b/a Washington University, Defendant/Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113127

Family

Consent judgment reviewed 
For an evidentiary hearing, any error in the appointment of a special master was rendered moot by the parties’ settlement. Parties who received a judgment in accordance as requested were not aggrieved, but that principle assumed that the circuit court acted on the parties’ valid consent. Consent was not valid due to a head injury, the appellant alleged, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed whether the judgment embodying the parties’ settlement was unconscionable. That matter was the subject of the appellant’s motion for new trial, on which the circuit court made a record, on which the circuit court’s findings of fact were due deference in the Court of Appeals. The record supported the rulings, including an award of attorney fees for the respondent. Rulings on untimely motions were void, including an order on an after-trial motion filed more than 30 days after entry of judgment, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the point relied on appealing such a ruling. 
(Overview summary) 
Matthew J. Weiss, Respondent, vs. Mary D. Weiss, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112738

Post-conviction

Evidence and arguments at plea hearing were okay 
Counsel was never ineffective when choosing a sound strategy. At the movant’s plea hearing, plea counsel entered character evidence in the form of letters instead of live testimony to avoid damage from cross-examination. “An attorney's decision whether to call a witness to testify as a matter of trial strategy is ‘virtually unchallengeable’ on appeal” from the denial of post-conviction relief. Arguing for probation, rather than a term of confinement less than the movant received, did not show that plea counsel was ineffective. The movant did not show that plea counsel’s arguments induced a longer term than the circuit court would otherwise have imposed. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment denying relief. 
(Overview Summary)
Aushena Warren vs. State of Missouri 
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD87128

Probate

Hearing was necessary on objections to final settlement 
On objections to a final settlement, properly pleaded, a hearing must occur. But after the filing of a petition for discovery of assets, and objections to the settlement, the circuit court issued judgment, then scheduled a hearing on the objections. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the action for a hearing on the objections and resolution of the petition for discovery of assets. 
In the Estate of QUENTIN LEE JONES, Deceased. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38886