Case summaries for July 24-30, 2026

Appellate | Civil| Constitutional | Criminal | Evidence | Local government | Personal injury | Post-conviction

Appellate

Acquiescence under threat of contempt estopped the appeal
The settlor of a trust was the mother, mother-in-law, and grandmother of the appellants. The appellants financially exploited the settlor by undue influence. The circuit court entered judgment against the appellants, ordering the appellants to transfer real property and personal property, and awarding monetary damages against appellants. The appellants filed a notice of appeal seeking to reverse all the relief ordered in the judgment, but no supersedeas bond to stay the judgment. The appellants also transferred the real and personal property to avoid enforcement of a contempt order. Those facts were inconsistent with a challenge — and therefore constituted acquiescence — to the judgment, which estopped any challenge to the judgment, which mooted the appeal. The fact that the appellants still owed the money judgment, and only transferred the property to avoid contempt, did not change that result. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
CAROL DEVOY, Co-Trustee of the Barnett Family Trust dated June 3, 1993, as amended, and STEPHANIE DEVOY and MEGAN DEVOY, Co-Trustees of the Barnett Family Trust dated June 3, 1993, as amended, and Co-Attorneys-In-Fact for Sara Jo Barnett under durable Power of Attorney dated May 2, 2017, Respondents v. CARMEN LISEK, RICHARD LISEK, and REBECCA CODY, Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39171

Finality of attorney fees award required denomination as a judgment
Appellate courts had authority to hear appeals from final judgments. The appellant challenged a ruling on a motion for attorney fees incurred in an underlying action by appealing the judgment in an action. But motions for attorney fees constituted actions separate from the underlying actions and so required their own final judgments. The elements of a final judgment included denomination as a judgment or decree and the ruling on attorney fees was by order and docket entry. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Stonebridge Homeowners Association v. Harriett A. Draper
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88397

Appellant’s briefing deficiencies required dismissal
Rules of appellate practice were mandatory. Violations of the rules governing the appendix, statement of facts, points relied on, and argument in the appellant’s brief would have required the Missouri Court of Appeals to construct an argument for the appellant. After notice and failure to correct, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
James Baker v. City of Maysville, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88301

Appellant’s briefing deficiencies required dismissal
Rules of appellate practice protected the appellate courts’ neutrality by eliminating speculation as to the appellants’ theories. Those rules included the format for appellate briefs. An argument and statement of facts without citations to supporting authority and references to the record would have required the Court of Appeals to construct an argument for the appellant. After notice and failure to correct, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Christine Harrelson v. David Culver, et al
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88214

Appellant’s briefing deficiencies required dismissal
Rules of appellate practice protected the appellate courts’ neutrality by eliminating speculation as to the appellants’ theories. Those rules included the format for the appellate briefs. An argument and statement of facts without citations to supporting authority and references to the record would have required the Court of Appeals to construct an argument for appellant. After notice and failure to correct, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Christine Harrelson v. Brandon Culver, et al
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88213

Appellant’s brief must provide context for the appeal
Appellant’s briefs had to set forth the factual context and legal authority for appellants’ challenges to judgments. And appellants had to do so by compliance with rules that governed statements of fact and argument sections of the brief. Appellant’s statement of facts and argument so deviated from those rules that the Court of Appeals could not understand what happened in circuit court. “[O]ur purpose is to explain rather than to embarrass [.]” The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
MARCUS DEANGELO JONES, Appellant v. JOSHUA WAYNE MORTON, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39442

Appellant preserved no error
Mandatory compliance with rules of appellate procedure gave notice to other parties and the courts as to appellants’ theories and protected appellate courts’ impartiality by avoiding speculation as to appellants’ theories. Failure to comply was grounds for dismissal. Appellant’s statement of facts was incomplete, biased, inaccurate and lacked references to the record. Appellant’s points relied on failed to offer one—and only one—of the four theories for reversal and ruling challenged. Appellant’s argument omitted preservation statement, standards of review, and references to the record. Each of those deficiencies resulted in the preservation of no error. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, which mooted all pending motions, which the Court of Appeals therefore denied.
AMY RINKER, Petitioner-Appellant v. CODY RINKER, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38895

Civil

No judgment on claim not pleaded
“A trial court may not enter judgment on a cause of action that a plaintiff did not plead.” That included summary judgment. The Sunshine Law required public governmental bodies to produce records and allowed penalties for purposeful violations. Separate statutory provisions addressed those claims respectively. The plaintiff’s petition claimed that the defendants failed to comply with the Sunshine Law, while the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment claimed that the defendants purposely violated the Sunshine Law, and the circuit court granted that motion. The circuit court had no authority to order any remedy on that claim, so the judgment was voidable. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, vacated the judgment, and remanded the action.
(Overview summary)
Cypress Horan, LLC, Respondent, v. City of Fenton, Missouri, et al., Appellants
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113842

No personal jurisdiction under bond
To show that circuit courts had personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants, the plaintiffs had to show that the defendants performed activities described in the long-arm statute and that such activities constituted the minimum contacts that due process required. The long-arm statute provided jurisdiction over the defendants who insured anything in Missouri. The plaintiff cited the parties’ mechanics’ lien bond, but that bond covered only judgments of New York courts related to construction in New York. The plaintiff also cited a contract with a forum selection clause specifying St. Louis County, but the defendants were not parties to that contract. The circuit court dismissed the action and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Hammer & Steel, Inc., Appellant, v. The J. Pilla Group, Ltd., and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113773

Constitutional

Rejected arguments were colorable at best
On a charge of domestic abuse, evidence that the defendant also damaged the victim’s car was admissible and “highly probative” to show the defendant’s mental state and explain the victim’s conduct. The sentence was subject to enhancement on facts that showed the defendant’s persistent offender status, so a jury had to find such facts. The governing statutes did not require a jury, but a rule and instructions did, so the Supreme Court of Missouri recently rejected a constitutional challenge to the statutes. That rendered the defendant’s argument merely colorable and not real or substantial, removing the appeal from the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The Missouri Court of Appeals denied transfer and affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Michael Leroy Butler
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87979

Criminal

Self-defense negated
The State had the burden to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s claim of self-defense. “Self-defense only provides a defense … when the danger is imminent, not when the victim is in retreat.” Self-defense with deadly force included an element of reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to avoid death, serious injury, or a forcible felony. The State rebutted that reasonable belief with evidence that the defendant shot the unarmed victim four times — twice while the victim was fleeing and twice more while the victim was on the ground — so the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for acquittal. The record showed that the circuit court based its sentence on the parties’ agreement, in which the defendant “shrewdly” waived jury sentencing, including findings of fact supporting a greater sentence, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review of the sentence and affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Daryl Clemmons, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113421

Police officer knew the sound of racking a pistol
Preserving error required raising an objection and repeating it in a motion for new trial and on appeal. The defendant raised one objection at trial and another objection in the motion for new trial and so preserved neither objection. That left discretionary review only for plain error. Plain error meant an obvious error that resulted in a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, meaning that the erroneously admitted evidence was outcome determinative, which generally depended on the strength of other evidence. The statutes applicable to facts were the statutes in effect when the facts occurred. When the facts occurred, armed criminal action included unlawful use of a weapon by angry display of a firearm, an exception for unlawful use of a weapon having been repealed decades ago. Qualifications to testify as an expert included Daubert factors and the circumstances of a particular case, among which were whether the testimony was helpful to the jury. A police officer’s “extensive” training and experience with firearms put the officer “in a better position to know” the sound of a pistol being racked than the average juror. The Missouri Court of Appeals exercised its discretion against plain error review. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment for a correction nunc pro tunc, to note the degree of domestic violence of which the jury found the defendant guilty, and the defendant’s status as a prior and persistent offender. Otherwise, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ERNESTO VALENTINO BELL, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39090

Sentences had to run consecutively
The State could not convict any defendant of any offense alleged to have occurred on one date with evidence of an offense that occurred at wholly different time period, but the State’s evidence was sufficient to show that the charged offenses occurred on the date alleged. Offenses occurring at the same time had to result in consecutive sentences and the record showed that the circuit court carefully considered the facts on which the circuit court based the sentences “unaffected by any mistaken belief.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Gerald L. Smith
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87798

Evidence

Propensity evidence was okay
Propensity evidence was admissible specifically for the offenses charged on a foundation that included probative value that outweighed unfair prejudice. Prior conduct was probative of a charged offense and a guilty plea to prior conduct removed all doubt. Differences of four years in the ages of victims and 17 years between prior conduct and charged offense did not negate probative value. “The evidentiary challenges presented by this type of case — coupled with the defense’s attack on the credibility of the State’s witnesses, including Victim — enhanced the probative value of the propensity evidence.” Proof of the prior conduct by documentary evidence of a conviction without undue emphasis, and proper jury instructions, diminished unfair prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Curtis Carl Benenhaley, Jr.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87942

Local government

Trial procedure for municipal ordinance violations explained
In prosecutions of municipal ordinance violations, trials proceeded like a criminal action but remained civil actions. So, on trial de novo, a request for jury was due ten days before trial. The defendant’s request on the day of trial was untimely, and the circuit court did not err when denying it. On motions to compel discovery, the defendants had to show the circuit court how requests were reasonable and not just possibly helpful and, on denial, show an appellate court how the denial was outcome-determinative. The defendant failed to meet those standards as to other citations issued by the citing officer and manuals for a laser speed detector. Circuit courts did not have to delay judgment until the time for filing a motion for new trial expired and the defendant consented to immediate sentencing. Sentencing made the judgment final and started the time to appeal. Circuit courts had to advise the defendants of appeal rights, but the defendant’s knowledge of appeal rights negated any prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
City of Kansas City, Missouri v. Charles Lamar Burgett
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88171

Ordinance was not in evidence
Municipal ordinances were subject to judicial notice only if filed with the circuit clerk and available for inspection. Otherwise, a certified or published copy was necessary for entry into the record. “Without proof of the ordinance supporting [defendant]’s conviction, no element of the offense is known, let alone established, resulting in a manifest injustice and a miscarriage of justice.” The city failed to enter the ordinance governing one set of the allegations against the defendant, so conviction on that charge was plain error. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that conviction.  
(Overview summary)
City of Kansas City, Missouri v. Charles Lamar Burgett
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88170

Personal injury

Wrongful death petition untimely served must be dismissed
Circuit courts had to dismiss wrongful death petitions not served on the defendant within a specified time. The circuit court had no authority to extend the deadline. That applied to claims — however denominated — alleging death as a result of medical negligence, to a claim seeking damages for the decedent’s pain and suffering before death, and to claims for loss of consortium and economic loss from the decedent’s death. Because the plaintiff had already voluntarily dismissed the petition, the involuntary dismissal had to be with prejudice. The elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress included placement of claimant’s own person in a zone of physical danger. The plaintiff did not allege such facts, and so failed to state a claim for relief, which required dismissal without prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of prohibition barring any action except dismissal of those counts with prejudice, except the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which the circuit court had to designate as with or without prejudice.  
STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. BUTLER COUNTY EMS, LLC., Relator v. THE HONORABLE KACEY LEE PROCTOR, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUTLER COUNTY, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39365

Post-conviction

Assistance with plea bargaining was not deficient
Assistance of trial counsel included evaluating plea bargains. The movant claimed that a mental health examination would have helped the movant make a better decision on the State’s offer but his testimony rebutted that allegation. And the movant claimed that knowing that death was a possible sentence would have helped the movant make a better decision on the State’s offer but the State never sought the death penalty. Those facts showed that the trial counsel’s performance was not deficient. Also, the movant never intended to plead guilty so the movant experienced no prejudice. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
SETH ANDREW GOMEZ, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39082

Plain error review declined, post-conviction relief possible
A matter on which an appellate court declined plain error review was subject to review for ineffective assistance of counsel. A claim not raised in the motion was unpreserved on appeal, even when the motion alleged facts relevant to the claim. Choosing to cross-examine an expert, instead of objecting to the expert’s testimony, was sound strategy. The movant did not show that a prior conviction had been expunged, so the movant did not show that trial counsel was ineffective for not knowing about the expungement. Trial counsel was not ineffective for choosing against making a meritless objection, like a relevance objection to relevant impeachment testimony. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
CURTIS JEROME WEBB, JR., Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39101

Confession instruction was contrary to sound strategy
The elements in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel included deficient performance, which a sound strategy negated. Trial counsel chose to characterize the movant’s confession as exaggeration, which was a sound strategy because the confession was thorough, detailed, repeated, and corroborated by other evidence. The instruction on when to disregard a confession would have been inconsistent with that strategy and would not likely have altered the outcome. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Larry D. Ratliff v. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87922