Case summaries for July 12-18, 2024

Appellant | Criminal | Civil | Evidence | Family | Tax

Appellant

No objection, no ruling, no appeal
Rule required appellant to identify the ruling challenged. When the state offered evidence, the defendant did not object, and the circuit court made no ruling. “To the contrary, the ‘failure’ of the judge to [intervene sua sponte] is understandable and laudable, in that ‘[u]ninvited’ interference by the trial court in trial proceedings is generally discouraged because it risks injecting the court into the role of a participant and invites error.” Having found no a facially evident, obvious, and clear error, the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BRYON G. PETTIJOHN, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38068

Criminal

Accomplice liability found
Evidence supporting accomplice liability for drug trafficking included driving recklessly and fast far from home with a companion who possessed contraband, disobeying a law enforcement officer’s directive to stay put after a crash, fleeing while the officer was distracted, and fabricating an alibi. Also, when the defendant’s companion put a hand in his pocket, law enforcement officer drew his weapon, the defendant’s companion tossed away the contraband, the officer announced that an arrest was occurring, and the defendant fled. Those facts showed the officer’s intent to arrest, an arrest in progress, and the defendant’s knowledge of those facts, supporting an inference that the defendant was escaping to avoid the arrest. Conviction for felony resisting arrest by flight affirmed. The Missouri Court of Appeals re-issued its original opinion after re-transfer from the Supreme Court of Missouri.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. CARL W. DILL, II, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37153

Execution date remains in place
A statute allowed a prosecutor to file a motion to vacate a conviction. A rule provided for re-setting an execution date after the exhaustion of remedies, including “review of the defendant's … state post-conviction motion [,]” meaning defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief in state courts. A prosecutor’s pending motion to vacate, therefore, did not constitute a “state” post-conviction motion, so the filing of such a motion did not render the re-set execution date premature.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marcellus Williams, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC83934

One vehicle driven through two counties, two prosecutions, double jeopardy
Constitutional provisions governing double jeopardy barred successive prosecutions for a single offense. A statute defined a single offense to include “a continuing course of conduct [that was] uninterrupted[.]” Another statute provided that one offense was included in another when they shared the same facts. The state alleged that defendant operated victim’s vehicle without victim’s consent through two counties, charged defendant with first degree tampering in one county, prevailed on that charge, and then charged defendant with first degree tampering in the other county. Under the Same Elements Test, the second prosecution constituted double jeopardy because the location of the events was not an element of first-degree tampering, and a separate excursion in the same vehicle is not a separate offense, and there was no separate offense without evidence of a separate mens rea. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the second conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian Keith Heathcock, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111834

No mental state required for special victim status
Assault in the second degree was subject to enhanced classification when the victim was a special victim as defined by statute. On appeal from a criminal conviction, appellate courts always reviewed a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, even when not preserved. Evidence was sufficient when a reasonable finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. The elements of assault in the second degree against a special victim did not include any mental state as to special victim status. All elements of second -degree assault against a special victim had support in the record so the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. RYAN ROBERT HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD37981

Civil

Jailers had official immunity
“The official immunity doctrine ‘protects public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for alleged acts of negligence committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts.’” Discretionary acts were “capable of being performed in different manners by different individuals” and could never be subject to a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus compelled only ministerial acts, which were those as to which there was no discretion in the execution – “either/or” actions. The petition alleged that a jailer had a duty to escort a prisoner to a jail cell was did not allege facts describing that duty as ministerial. The petition also alleged that a jailer had a duty to monitor a prisoner in a jail cell but alleged facts that described a discretionary duty. The circuit court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
DAVID RAYMOND CADY, ET AL, Appellants v. CITY OF MALDEN, MISSOURI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL, Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38100

“Procedural confusion and inevitable error” require remand
Rule provided that the petitioner had the right to file an amended petition any time before the filing of a responsive pleading. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the initial petition, but a motion to dismiss was not a responsive pleading; so, when the petitioner filed an amended petition, the amended petition superseded the initial petition and rendered the initial petition abandoned. No motion to dismiss the amended petition was pending, and the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss the initial petition. The judgment did not acknowledge that procedure or otherwise indicate which petition the circuit court was ruling on. Whether the circuit court dismissed the initial petition after its abandonment, or the amended petition without a motion pending, the circuit court erred. The Missouri Court of Appeals withdrew its earlier opinion and remanded the action to the circuit court.
(Overview summary) 
Larry Rice, Appellant, vs. Midland States Bank and Midland States Bancorp, Inc., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112264

Reference to corporate wealth was prejudicial
A ruling on a mistrial is subject to review for manifest abuse of discretion, meaning a grievous error causing incurable prejudice. “It has been long established in Missouri jurisprudence that references to the size, wealth, and corporate status of a party during trial are improper when intended to arouse prejudice and not within the scope of legitimate argument [and r]aising matters barred by the trial court’s order in limine unquestionably falls outside the scope of legitimate argument.” The circuit court issued an order in limine barring plaintiff from referring to the defendant’s wealth, but the plaintiff repeatedly referred to the defendant as a “billion-dollar” company. Those references, the circuit court’s denial of a mistrial, the absence of any guidance from the circuit court on the references, and an award of $11 million in non-economic damages for the loss of an eye, showed that the defendant experienced prejudice that sustaining the defendant’s objections did not cure. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.
(Overview summary) 
Andrew Wilkinson, Respondent, vs. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111901

Evidence

No duty to strike venire person sua sponte
Issues not preserved are only subject to review for plain error, which appellate courts use sparingly. Appellant had first to show an open and obvious error. If so, an appellate court granted relief only if substantial grounds showed that such error was so prejudicial as to be outcome determinative. the circuit court had no duty to sua sponte strike any venire person, including one who expressed reluctance to sit in judgment of a murder charge, so no error occurred. And no substantial grounds showed that refraining from a sua sponte strike was outcome determinative. No error occurred in admitting expert testimony on handwriting and other overwhelming evidence negated any prejudice. The Court of Appeals did not grant plain error review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. SHAWN C. HANNA, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37640

Family

Squandering found
In an action for dissolution of marriage, the circuit court had to divide marital property, which it had to value, and such valuation included squandered marital assets. The accusing party had the burden of persuasion but, on a “relatively low” prima facie showing of squandering, the accused party had the burden of production: to show where the assets were, or that the assets went to marital liabilities and reasonable living expenses. The circuit court’s determination of credibility were due deference on appeal. And appellant did not claim that the property division was inequitable, which abandoned the matter. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
LEROY F. GILBERT, Respondent v. ANDREA D. CHRISMER-STILL, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37929

Tax

Challenges to special assessments too late
Missouri Community Improvement District Act included a statute of limitations specifically for special assessments levied by the special purpose districts created under the act and that statute applied in lieu of the statute generally addressing refunds of local taxes. The plaintiffs’ earlier action was unsuccessful and the plaintiffs’ later action was not timely. The circuit court ruled against the plaintiffs based on collateral estoppel, but the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment based on the time bar.
(Overview summary) 
1123 Washington Avenue Retail Condo, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. The Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112215