Case summaries for Sept. 5-11, 2025
Each week, The Missouri Bar provides links to all hand downs published online during the past seven days by the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Missouri Bar has created headings and summaries for each case. Summaries are not part of the opinions of the Court. They have been prepared for the convenience of the reader and should not be quoted or cited.
Criminal | Evidence | Post-conviction | Real estate
Criminal
No dismissal under UMDDL without speedy trial violation
The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law required the state to either dispose of detainers within a specified time from the defendant’s motion or dismiss its charges against defendant, but only “if the court finds that the offender’s constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied.” The denial of a speedy trial depended on several factors. Courts did not have to consider any relief if the delay was less than eight months. State-caused delays, to which the defense acquiesced by making no objection, weighed against the defendant. Prejudice was the most important factor and the movant showed only the usual anxiety of incarceration, which the movant was already experiencing from confinement on other charges.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Phillip A. Emily, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112931
Description as “serial killer” discussed
No abuse of discretion occurred when the circuit court denied the defendant’s motions to replace a juror who was slightly acquainted with a state witness, might have briefly seen the defendant in restraints, and affirmed that the juror would remain unbiased. No plain error occurred when the circuit court chose not to intervene sua sponte in the state’s closing argument, suggesting that the defendant aspired to serial killing, because that argument suggested a motive supported by the record. “[U]se of the term ‘serial killer’ is error but not always grounds to reverse[.]”
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Ledra Craig, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112801
Self-defense instruction was necessary
Circuit courts had to submit on request an instruction for any defense theory that substantial evidence supported. Self-defense did not include deadly force to repel a simple assault or battery, but whether the force was deadly, and whether the assault or battery was simple, were in dispute and therefore were jury questions. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction for attempted unlawful use of a weapon and remanded the action to the circuit court.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Danielle Lechocki, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112696
Identity theft conviction affirmed
The defendant paid for a hotel room with fraudulent credit card information, so the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus no standing to challenge a search of the hotel room. The state had to inform the defendant of the charge and prove the elements of that charge, but it did not have to prove details appearing in the charging instrument, like the approximated date of the events alleged. The defendant admitted purchasing gift cards with stolen information, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for class-A misdemeanor identity theft.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MICHAEL SCOTT MOUNT, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38642
No inference of guilt from request for lawyer
When asked about “an incident that happened earlier” on the day of the defendant’s arrest, without reference to any charge, the defendant demanded a lawyer. Testimony recounting those events raised no inference of guilt, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. For a brief video showing the defendant with a firearm resembling the firearm used in the offense, the foundation was sufficient, and the defendant did not argue that any prejudice resulted from its admission. Remanded for an order nunc pro tunc conforming the written sentence to the sentence spoken in court.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DEPARIS D. TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38581
No expungement for ordinance convictions
Records of a misdemeanor marijuana offenses were subject to expungement. The petitioner sought expungement of a conviction for violating a municipal ordinance. That conviction was a civil infraction, not a misdemeanor or other marijuana conviction, so it was not subject to expungement.
(Overview summary)
K.D.W. vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol Records Repository, et al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86993
No review for prosecutorial misconduct
The state had to produce on request the identity of witnesses and their statements. Remedies for non-compliance were within the circuit court’s discretion and were not limited to mistrial. Disclosure also did not include the prosecutor’s work product. No plain error occurred when the circuit court did not order production of notes that the prosecutor made for her own use. Appellate review examined circuit court conduct, which did not include the prosecutor’s conduct, so a claim of prosecutorial misconduct was not cognizable on appeal. The defendant preserved a challenge to the circuit court’s rulings on the prosecutor’s attorney work product but not as to the notes.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. John A. Frazier
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86572
Evidence
Hearsay exception for forfeiture-by-wrongdoing applied
The hearsay rule excluded out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter stated. An exception allowed hearsay into the record on a foundation that included the declarant’s absence when the defendant “caused or substantially contributed to cause the unavailability of the” declarant. That described the defendant’s statements to the victim, persuading the victim not to appear at trial. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the hearsay statements of the victim into evidence. Hearsay statements were also subject to objection under the Confrontation Clause, but the defendant did not preserve that matter and the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ORLANDO C. MOORE, SR., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38242
Post-conviction
No prejudice when other evidence showed guilt
On a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant had to show that substandard practice resulted in prejudice. “As a matter of strategy, the decision not to call a witness is ‘virtually unchallengeable.’” Trial counsel’s choice of not calling a child witness for cumulative alibi testimony was not below professional standards and did not prejudice the movant. The playback of an audio recording accidentally included the victim’s scream, but an objection or curative instruction would only have highlighted the scream, so refraining from objecting was sound strategy. “[I]f you’re not going to get the mistrial, you’re not going to object.” Prejudice from trial counsel’s evidentiary choices was absent when ample other evidence supported a finding of guilty.
(Overview summary)
Christopher L. Russell, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112942
Real estate
Specific performance granted
Specific performance was an equitable remedy, the award of which did not require a jury trial, even for affirmative defenses at law. In the absence of specific findings of fact, appellate courts presumed that circuit courts resolved all factual disputes in favor of the result that the circuit court reached. The circuit court enforced a contract for the sale of land over allegations by the decedent seller’s personal representative as to the seller’s capacity to contract and the buyer’s undue influence. And the record supported the circuit court’s implicit findings. Given the conclusion of no undue influence, an analysis of evidence supporting a presumption of undue influence was unnecessary. The appellants challenging the weight of the evidence had to acknowledge the evidence supporting the judgment but the personal representative failed to do so.
(Overview summary)
Anthony E. Barron vs. Martha Parker, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Catherine L. Brizendine (Deceased)
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87250