Case summaries for Aug. 7-13, 2026

Appellate | Criminal | Employment | Family | Personal injury | Post-conviction

Appellate

Payment mooted appeal
Motions for sanctions and post-judgment clarifications did not constitute claims, so ruling on such motions could not constitute judgments, and were not subject to appeal. And any appeal that could result in no meaningful relief on any existing controversy was moot. The appellant sought review of a ruling assessing monetary sanctions and denying clarification. Then the appellant paid the sanction without seeking a stay or posting a supersedeas bond. Compliance with that ruling mooted the appeal from the ruling. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
MARK CHRISTOPHER DARNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SUZANNE KAY REMETIO, and DANIEL ZACEK SMITH, Defendants-Respondents
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39425

Criminal

No plain error review on enhanced sentence
The elements of plain error included an obvious error resulting in manifest injustice, meaning that the error was outcome-determinative, which often depended on the strength of the evidence. And courts seldom found plain error when the defendant made no objection. Any fact that increased a sentence had to be submitted to a jury, like the facts that showed prior and persistent offender status, but the circuit court failed to do so. Instead, the circuit court took notice of the facts supporting prior and persistent offender status, and concluded that the appellant was a prior and persistent offender. But both occurred without objection or with a statement of no objection. And the appellant did not show that a jury could reasonably have found that the defendant was not a prior and persistent offender. Also, the sentence was in the unenhanced range of punishment so the defendant could not even show prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review and affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DERICK JAY COOK, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD38766

Error unpreserved
Preserving a constitutional right to present excluded evidence required the defendants to raise the challenge at the first opportunity. Preserving any argument against excluding evidence required the defendants to make an offer of proof. The defendant failed to do both and the record did not afford a complete understanding of what the evidence was excluded. Failing to preserve error left review only for plain error, on which courts rarely granted relief when the defendants did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review and affirmed the convictions.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MARVIN EUGENE GUERIN, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39150

Employment

Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act applied
The federal government’s Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act barred the compulsory arbitration of disputes over sexual assaults and harassment, including enforcement of any pre-dispute arbitration agreement. The employee reported sexual assault and harassment by a supervisor, was terminated, and was re-hired without the supervisory relationship. The employee and employer then entered into an arbitration agreement and the employer tried to compel resumption of the supervisory relationship. The plaintiff employee brought several claims alleging that the employer retaliated against the employee for refusing to accept sexual assault and harassment. But the claims were not for sexual assault and harassment, so the circuit court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the agreement. That ruling was error because the agreement was pre-dispute, in that the dispute was resolved when the parties made the agreement; and the Act applied to all disputes, not just claims; and the Act covered the entire action of which that dispute was a part. The Missouri Court of Appeals made permanent its writ of mandamus requiring the circuit court to deny the motion to compel arbitration.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri Ex Rel., Alan Waddell v. The Honorable Cory Lee Atkins, Circuit Court Judge, Division 17 of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD89050

Family

Child support modified on testimony alone
Appellate courts could not advocate for either party, including on whether the appellant preserved an issue, so an inadequate preservation statement was grounds for dismissal of a point relied on. To modify an award of child support required evidence “of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable.” That included evidence of increased costs of living and expenses that increased with the child’s age. The movant carried that burden with “detailed” testimony of the children’s increased costs, the movant’s decreased income, and the appellant’s increased income even without supporting documents. Circuit courts had to draft a Form 14 for each combination of children at issue and the circuit court did so by drafting one for two children and another for one child. The circuit court correctly applied a credit for overnight visits exercised and not merely awarded. How circuit courts calculated the presumed child support amount and how circuit courts determined whether that amount was rebutted were separate rulings requiring separate points relied on; combining those challenges into one point made that point multifarious. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
Brandi M. Bizzell, Appellant, v. Thomas E. Bernatow, Respondent.
(Overview summary)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113839

Credit was due for amounts paid pendente lite
Whether a ruling was unsupported by substantial evidence or against the weight of the evidence were two different theories, requiring separate points relied on, and combining them rendered a point relied on multifarious and subject to dismissal. Joint custody of a child was preferred but the appellant’s disinterest in parenting supported an award of sole custody in respondent. Courts could impute counsel’s conduct to the client, including an award of attorney fees for late arrival on the day of trial and declining plain error review for failure to file a post-trial motion. “[A] party ordered to pay retroactive support is generally entitled to receive a credit for voluntary child support [.]” When the circuit court failed to apply that credit, the Missouri Court of Appeals entered the judgment that the circuit court should have entered.
(Overview summary)
Andrew R. Vollmer, Appellant, v. Kathy D. Vollmer, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113666

Personal injury

New trial was due when the verdict was against the weight of the evidence
Appellate courts favored the grant of a new trial over the denial of a new trial. If a motion for new trial set forth any basis for granting the motion, and the circuit court granted the motion on such basis, appellate courts affirmed the ruling. The circuit court recited the standard incorrectly but applied the correct standard. The circuit court set forth its basis clearly, rather than simply referencing paragraphs of the motion, and no detailed analysis was necessary. In a challenge to the granting of a new trial, matters related to the grant of partial summary judgment were irrelevant. Appellate courts viewed the record in a light favorable to the circuit court’s ruling so whether the jury favored the defendant appellant, or could have, was irrelevant. A submissible case of failure to warn included causation. The plaintiff satisfied that element with the presumption that, if the defendant had given a warning, the plaintiff would have followed the warning. In context and on the record, the plaintiff did not challenge a defective design in all products in the entire industry.
(Overview summary)
K.W., et al., Respondents, v. Saint Louis Children's Hospital, et al., Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113441

Post-conviction

Third party interference not shown
Untimely filing waived all relief with limited exceptions. The exceptions included third-party interference, which required the movants to do everything necessary to file timely, and to show that a third party thwarted timely filing. That required detailed pleading and proof as to how the third party prevented timely filing. The movant alleged that he was jailed in Kansas without his “legal work” but did not allege that Kansas deprived him of access to a law library or any other facts that described third-party interference. The circuit court denied relief without a hearing and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
ROY L. BLACKSURE, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39358