Case summaries for Aug. 14-20, 2026

Constitutional | Criminal | Family |Insurance | Post-conviction

Constitutional

No concealed carry permits for felons 
The United States Constitution’s Second Amendment protected the right of law-abiding citizens to “keep and bear Arms [.]” Restrictions on felons bearing arms were constitutional because felons were not law-abiding citizens and such restrictions had a long history in “our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” Grounds to deny a concealed carry permit included felony convictions and guilty pleas. Substantial evidence of those convictions included the applicant’s testimony and other undisputed evidence. The circuit court affirmed the denial and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Anthony Hayes, Appellant, v. Saint Louis County Police Department, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113903

Criminal

Trespasser had no standing to challenge search 
Appellate courts reviewed the record from the pretrial hearings and at trial. Guests of a tenant had standing to challenge searches of tenants’ premises, but the record supported a finding that the defendant was a trespasser and not a guest. The elements of possessing contraband included control of the contraband and knowledge of the contraband’s nature. Actual possession of contraband supported an inference that the defendant knew what the contraband was. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ritchie A. Jones, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED113690

No plain error in multiple sentences for one incident
Defendant had to raise constitutional issues at the first opportunity, except double jeopardy, because double jeopardy went “to the very power of the State to bring the defendant in the court [.]” Unpreserved double jeopardy claims were within the courts’ discretionary plain error review. Plain error review required the defendant to show that an obvious error affected a fundamental right and caused a manifest injustice. Double jeopardy barred conviction for an offense under both a general description and a specific instance. One course of conduct could constitute multiple offenses if the statutes setting forth those offenses had differing elements. First-degree assault required the State to show that the defendant caused serious physical injury, while unlawful use of weapon by shooting at a motor vehicle did not. Unlawful use of weapon by shooting at a motor vehicle required the State to show that the defendant used a firearm, while first-degree assault did not. Each armed criminal action conviction required the State to show a separate underlying offense. Therefore, no error occurred when the circuit court imposed multiple sentences for those multiple offenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. BRYAN W. GRISSOM, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD

Family

Findings were sufficient 
When substantial admissible evidence in the record [supported a] judgment [,]” reversible error in the admission of evidence was “practically impossible” to show. The appellant challenged the admission of financial records authenticated by deposition but showed no prejudice from that evidence because other, undisputed evidence supported the judgment. In actions to modify child custody, statutory factors guided circuit courts’ determination of the children’s best interest. Conclusory recitations of which factor favored which party were insufficient because they did not allow meaningful appellate review. Circuit courts had to support their application of those factors made relevant by the allegations and evidence with findings of fact. The circuit court met that standard with “numerous factual findings corresponding to several statutory best-interest considerations” that “extensively considered allegations” and relevant evidence. “[T]he findings are relevant to the requests of the parties, easy for this Court to ascertain, and clearly attributable to [applicable] factors [.]” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
COLBY L. DAVISON, Appellant v. BOBBIE S. FOLEY f/k/a DAVISON, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39296

Insurance

Insurers need not cover sales tax for replacement vehicle when vehicle not replaced
Judgment on the pleadings was due when the petition alleged facts on which no relief was due under any theory. An earlier appellate ruling on a motion to dismiss held that relief was due if the insured’s reading of a policy was correct but did not decide that the insured’s reading of the policy was correct. The parties’ automobile policy’s collision coverage gave the insurer the option of repair or replacement. Replacement was at comparable value. Comparable value included any tax that the insured had to incur to “acquire ownership” of a replacement vehicle. Insured’s vehicle suffered a collision, the insured did not acquire ownership of a replacement vehicle, the insurer paid replacement value that did not include an amount for sales tax. In an action for breach of contract, the insured sought an amount for sales tax, but no relief was due because the insured never incurred sales tax. The circuit court granted the insured’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Yolanda Bell v. Shelter General Insurance Company
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88275

Post-conviction

Abandonment inquiry required 
With exceptions inapplicable to the movant’s action, timely filing was mandatory. Among those exceptions was abandonment by appointed counsel. When appointed counsel filed amended motions out of time, circuit courts had to conduct an inquiry into whether the appointed counsel had abandoned the movant because abandonment excused untimely filing. The circuit court failed to conduct that inquiry. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action to the circuit court for an inquiry into abandonment. 
TERRANCE LAMONTE JOHNSON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD39268