Case summaries for July 18-24, 2025

Appellate | Attorneys | Criminal | Personal injury |  Post-conviction | Real estate | Tax

Appellate

Points were multifarious 
In a bench-tried case, the circuit court could rule for defendants on the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief, and did so, and the appellants did not show that the circuit court erred in applying the law to the defendants with the burden of persuasion. A challenge to a ruling as against the weight of the evidence required a specified analysis that the appellants “completely neglect[ed.]” Points relied on were multifarious when they: did not clarify the ruling challenged, challenged multiple rulings, offered theories for relief on both fact and law, or offered multiple theories for relief on the law. When the appellants failed to show error in the circuit court’s rulings, points relied on that raised “alternative hypothetical grounds upon which the [circuit] court’s judgment might have rested” did not show prejudice. 
(Overview summary) 
Citizens for Transparency and Accountability, et al. vs. Western Cass Fire Protection District, et al. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86415

Attorneys

No whistleblower protection when disclosing client information 
Lawyers could not disclose information related to representation of a client notwithstanding First Amendment protections absent legal compulsion. Whether the information was subject to the Sunshine Law was irrelevant until a ruling that the information was subject to the Sunshine Law. Protections from employer discipline, including for persons who informed specified officials of possibly unlawful conduct, did not prevent lawyer discipline by the Supreme Court of Missouri. The Court suspended the respondent lawyer indefinitely with no leave to apply for re-instatement for one year. 
(Overview summary) 
In re: Ryan Christopher McCarty, Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100905

Criminal

No ADHD defense 
In determining whether relief was due from deprivation of a speedy trial, factors included prejudice, especially in preparing a defense, which the defendant did not show. The elements of murder in the second degree included acting with knowledge that a result was practically certain. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was not a mental defect, and did not impair knowledge, so an expert’s testimony on ADHD was irrelevant logically and legally. Juries could consider lesser-included offenses if they did not find the defendant guilty of the greater offense, but need not acquit on the greater offense first, and arguments otherwise misstated the law. The state transgressed that rule in closing argument, but the jury was presumed to follow the circuit court’s instructions, and the defendant showed no prejudice. 
(Overview summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Devin Griffin-Curry, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112798

Marijuana offense defined 
Constitutional provisions governing marijuana required expungement of any “marijuana offense.” “[T]he meaning of ‘marijuana offense’ becomes clear: only offenses that involve ‘[p]urchasing, possessing, consuming, using, ingesting, inhaling, processing, transporting, delivering without consideration, or distributing without consideration three ounces or less of dried, unprocessed marijuana, or its equivalent’ are ‘marijuana offenses.’” Those provisions did not affect any law governing “[c]onduct that endangers others.” Unlawful use of weapons included knowingly possessing a firearm while knowingly in possession of marijuana in a felony amount. “This represents a legislative conclusion that possessing a firearm while also in possession of a controlled substance increases the inherent risk in possessing a firearm.” The circuit court did not err in denying expungement of a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. 
(Overview summary) 
C.S., Appellant, vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information Service; Lafayette Prosecuting Attorney, Respondents. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100944

One event, two convictions, no double jeopardy 
Double jeopardy barred multiple convictions for a single offense but multiple offenses could characterize a single incident. The elements of first-degree rape included forcible compulsion and did not include the victim’s age. The elements of first-degree statutory rape included the victim’s age and did not include forcible compulsion. Convictions for both showed no facial manifest injustice so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. GREGORY LEON CRUMM, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38531

Personal injury

Allegations of inappropriate touching required an affidavit
Appellate courts reviewed summary judgments de novo but only on the same theories that appellant raised in circuit court. Statutes replaced common law medical negligence actions with a statutory action. The statutory action required support from an affidavit stating that the plaintiff had a medical expert’s opinion on the standard of care. The plaintiff filed late, as the circuit court allowed, and avoided a dismissal without prejudice only to be dismissed later with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that allowing the late filing prejudiced the plaintiff by depriving the plaintiff of a dismissal without prejudice, but the plaintiff had joined in the challenged ruling. The plaintiff alleged that a physician’s assistant touched her sexually during an examination. That allegation constituted a medical negligence claim, and the plaintiff filed no affidavit, so the circuit court did not err in dismissing that claim. On a motion for summary judgment, once the movant established facts entitling movant to a favorable judgment, the respondent had to raise a genuine dispute as to those facts, with support in in admissible evidence. The plaintiff responded with an affidavit from an expert not named as a witness, so its content was not admissible, and did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact. The motion, filed by one defendant, supported summary judgment for all defendants.
A.O., Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LESTER E. COX MEDICAL CENTERS, d/b/a COX MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, and COXHEALTH, Defendants-Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD

Post-conviction

New deadlines did not make filing timely; investigation was sufficient 
The circuit courts found each movant’s amended motion was timely filed and denied relief after a hearing. The motions were not timely: amended rules did not apply to pending motions, so the amended deadlines for filing an amended motion did not extend the time for filing the amended motions, and the amended motions were untimely. Whether an untimely motion was within the circuit courts’ authority depended on whether the untimely filing resulted from the appointed counsel’s abandonment. That ordinarily required a circuit court inquiry, but the amended motions showed abandonment on their faces, so no remand was necessary. And each circuit court, though mistaking its authority, made findings on a record for appellate review. One movant did not show that a marital property interest in a car conferred standing for a Franks challenge to the warrant for a search of that car, so the movant did not show that the trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring a Franks challenge. On allegations of failure to investigate and use evidence, performance was substandard when the evidence would have aided a defense, and prejudice resulted when the evidence would have supported a viable defense. Employment records, showing that the victim and the movant worked together, would not have aided the defense theory that the defendant ‘was misidentified as the shooter.” The other movant did not show that expert testimony on the movant’s mental health at sentencing, in addition to the evidence already before the circuit court, would have secured him a suspended execution of sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. 
(Overview summary) 
Jessie L. Nelson, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. and Cameron D. Woods, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100957

No matters in motion already decided on appeal 
The only timely motion was the initial motion, and the initial motion’s only claim was on the suppression of evidence. That claim was already the subject of an appeal on the merits of the conviction and the result was binding. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court’s denial of relief. 
(Overview summary) 
Cedric Dewayne Mack, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100921

Deadlines continued unaffected by amended rule 
“[A] procedural rule applies to all pending proceedings whether commenced before or after the adoption of the rule” “unless the rule states otherwise[,]” as did the rule setting filing deadlines. The rule on filing deadlines expressly provided that the rule in effect at sentencing continued to govern all pending proceedings amendments notwithstanding. An amended motion filed after that deadline was untimely, which courts forgave when it was the result of abandonment by appointed counsel, but not otherwise. “If counsel is not appointed as counsel of record by an appointment order, the abandonment doctrine does not apply.” Only the initial motion was timely, but the movant appealed no ruling on claims in the initial motion, so the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment denying relief. 
(Overview summary) 
Christopher A. Scott, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100916

Movant’s testimony undercut movant’s claim
“[I]f conviction results from a guilty plea, any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent that it impinges the voluntariness and knowledge with which the plea was made.” The movant charged plea counsel with ineffective assistance for filing a motion for change of venue out of time, but the record showed that movant knew the deadline, and that the movant was satisfied with plea counsel’s performance. The circuit court did not clearly err in denying relief.
BRYCE DAVIS, Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38856

Real estate

Statute prevailed over MSD lien ordinance 
The Metropolitan Sewer District had constitutional authority to enact ordinances that provided liens against properties for unpaid fees. The district’s liens were specifically subject to extinguishment in a sheriff’s sale instituted by the St. Louis City’s Land Reutilization Authority under the Municipal Land Reutilization Law’s statutory authority. The law’s statutory power prevailed over the ordinances of the district, the district’s “constitutional origins” notwithstanding, so the plaintiff buyer purchased its property free and clear of the district’s lien. Whether the procedure by which to make that ruling was the district’s procedures, or a quite title action, the defendant district did not raise in circuit court and so waived the argument in the Missouri Court of Appeals. The circuit court did not err in entering summary judgment for the property owner. 
(Overview summary) 
Tabernacle Community Development Corporation, Respondent, vs. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112875

Tax

Marijuana sales taxing authority clarified 
Constitutional provisions authorized an additional tax on the retail sale of marijuana by certain local governments. Those provisions unambiguously defined local government for an unincorporated area as the county; but defined local government for an incorporated area as the city, town, or village incorporating such area. Therefore, where a city, town, or village imposed such tax, the county could not. That result did not threaten county ordinances on health, safety, or other non-sales-tax matters. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated summary judgment for counties and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary) 
Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents. 
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100898