Case summaries for July 26-Aug. 1, 2024

Attorneys | Civil | Criminal | Evidence | Probate | Workers' compensation

Attorneys

Criminal conviction reversed on conflict of interests
Motion to disqualify alleged facts and cited law in support. Rule barred lawyer from representations that conflicted with the interests of a former client. The former client was a criminal defendant. The lawyer was a former client’s public defender now prosecuting a criminal action against client. The rule that governed motions to strike applied to civil actions and not to criminal actions. The lawyer’s prosecution of the criminal action was presumptively prejudicial and rebuttable as to the entire prosecuting attorney’s office only on “proof of adequate investigation and screening[.]” In the absence of any such evidence, the circuit court erred in striking the motion to disqualify, so the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded it to circuit court with instructions to appoint a special prosecutor.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Christopher Michael Patrick Moore
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86007

Civil

Remedy on summary judgment was dismissal
Even when a court had jurisdiction, plaintiff had to allege a claim that was justiciable, which included showing standing to bring the claim. Standing included an interest that was protected by law and was subject to “a substantial controversy … between parties with genuinely adverse interests.” Standing was subject to challenge by a motion to dismiss or by a motion for summary judgment. In an action under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the plaintiff alleged that defendant employer denied the plaintiff a job without the disclosure and authorization required when basing that decision on information from a third-party vendor. But the act required no such disclosure, so the plaintiff had no standing, and the summary judgment record supported a ruling for defendant. A ruling on standing did not reach the merits of plaintiff’s claim so the remedy was dismissal. Allegations first made in response to a motion for summary judgment are unpreserved. On appeal, showing that a genuine dispute of material fact remained required appellant to cite the numbered paragraphs of the summary judgment motion and response. The Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment of dismissal.
(Overview summary)
Michael Mathews, Et al. vs. Fieldworks, LLC
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86539

Criminal

Exception was not an element
“The general rule is that where an exception appears in the section of the statute defining the offense, the state has the burden to prove that the relevant facts do not fall within the reach of the exception” but “[w]here an exception ‘is found in a separate clause or part of the statute disconnected from the definition of the offense[,]’ it is not for the prosecution to negate.” Statutes governing unlawful use of a firearm, by being a felon in possession, provided an exception for antique firearms. That exception appeared in a different part of the statute from the definition, so it was not an element of the offense, and no plain error occurred when the circuit court submitted the approved instructions that omitted the exception.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Dylan Jacob Garoutte III
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86033

No automatic release when conviction vacated for actual innocence, retrial possible
Statute created a civil action to vacate or set aside a criminal conviction on grounds including actual innocence, judgment on which was effective like any other judgment, so an appeal did not automatically stay execution of the judgment. The judgment of vacatur returned the criminal action to pre-trial status, including detention of the defendant for retrial, release, or dismissal. The Supreme Court of Missouri made permanent its preliminary writ requiring the circuit court to amend its judgment and order accordingly.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri ex rel. Andrew Bailey v. the Honorable Jason Sengheiser
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100672

Sentences in excess of statutes were plain error
The victim’s testimony constituted circumstantial corroborating evidence of guilt, more than satisfactory for the corpus delecti rule, including lack of consent through intoxication. Cumulative evidence was never prejudicial, much less plain error. Failure to offer, and to make an offer of proof as to evidence excluded on a motion in limine, leaves review only for plain error. No plain error appeared when evidence excluded under the Rape Shield statute was not in the record. No plain error occurred when instructions omitted part of the definition for “deviate sexual intercourse” because the omitted portions were not seriously in dispute — the defense was that defendant either did not commit the acts alleged or did so with consent — and had support in the record. Appellant showed no mistaken reading of the statutes governing sentencing because the statutes mandated consecutive sentences for some offenses and permitted consecutive sentences for others, and the record supported consecutive sentences. Statutes authorized enhanced sentencing on a conclusion of predatory sexual offender status including multiple victims at different times. Some sentences were not subject to enhancements imposed by circuit court, and those sentences in excess of statutory authority constituted plain error, so the Missouri Court of Appeals remanded for re-sentencing.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Dominic S. Yocco, Defendant/Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111409

Evidence

Rebuttal okay
In a criminal action, a circuit court had discretion to allow rebuttal for counteracting and disproving doubts raised by the defense, though that did not include documents not disclosed during discovery. Witnesses not disclosed may testify in rebuttal of the defense, except as to mental disease or defect when the defense has disclosed its witnesses, or alibi. The courts abolished the doctrine of destructive contradictions because the credibility or weight of evidence was not for appellate courts, only for judges and juries. The jury had evidence that, if believed, supported the finding of guilt.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. CHRISTOPHER WILLIS ENGLISH, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD37992

Probate

Damages awarded against attorney-in-fact
A durable power of attorney’s authority to make gifts on the principal’s behalf did not apply when the principal had no donative intent. Self-gifts required express authority. Statute governing actions against an attorney-in-fact providing standing to successors in interest, defined to “include” certain persons. That language was not exclusive and expressed enlargement rather than limitation. An attorney-in-fact’s fiduciary duties include protecting the principal’s estate plan as shown by a will even if not probated. The circuit court imposed a constructive trust but failed to specify the trust’s res, which was error, but required no remand because the Missouri Court of Appeals entered judgment ordering appellant to pay specified money damages “cash” to respondents. Remanded to determine an award of attorney fees.
(Overview summary)
David Broy, et al., Respondents, v. Diane Broy, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111275

Workers compensation

Carpal tunnel disease supported second injury fund award
The elements of a claim for compensation from the Second Injury Fund included a primary disability that caused permanent total disability when combined with at least one qualifying preexisting disability. Such disabilities included occupational diseases like carpal tunnel syndrome. The claimant showed multiple such qualifying pre-existing injuries, so the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission erred in denying the claim.
(Overview summary)
James Eckardt, Appellant, vs. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112132