Case summaries for Sept. 6-12, 2024

Administrative | ADR | Civil | Criminal | Orders of protection | Post-conviction

Administrative

Hearsay was competent and substantial evidence
The Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied the claimant employment security benefits for misconduct connected with work. The claimant challenged that decision for lack of support in substantial and competent evidence. Substantial and competent evidence included hearsay offered without objection like the employer’s records. Those records showed that the claimant knew of the employer’s drug testing policy, which allowed immediate termination for refusing a drug test, and that the claimant refused a drug test. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
MATTHEW MISSELHORN, Claimant-Appellant v. DIVISION of EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent and AEROFIL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Employer
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38367

ADR

Mediator’s perception as evidence discussed
A motion to enforce a settlement constituted an action for specific performance of a contract, collateral to the underlying action. The movant had the burden to show the elements of such contract and its essential terms by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. Whether one party accepted another party’s offer depended on what the parties said and did, not what either one believed, and “[w]hether the mediator believed there was a settlement is relevant but not dispositive of our analysis, as we must look to the objective manifestations of the parties.” The evidence supported a finding, unwritten but presumed because it favored the party who prevailed on the motion, that an essential term remained unresolved despite the mediator’s congratulations to the parties. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying enforcement of a settlement.
(Overview summary)
Elena Puga and Nicole Edwards, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Nephrite Fund I, LLC, Et Al.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87149

Civil

Proposed judgment okay
A motion to amend judgment was necessary to preserve error in the form of a judgment, which included a challenge to signing a proposed judgment verbatim. Signing a proposed judgment verbatim was not per se error and did not describe any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment terminating parental rights.
IN THE INTEREST OF: P.S.A., a minor child under seventeen years of age, GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Respondent v. C.R.A., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38461

Criminal

License plate reader and good faith supported results of search warrant
The initial judicial determination that probable cause supported the issuance of a search warrant was due great deference on appeal and subject to reversal only on clear error. Clear error did not result from unlawfully obtained information if probable cause had independent support in lawfully obtained information. Such information came from surveillance, security, and license plate reading cameras; and from the crime scene. That evidence did not show that the fatal gunshots came from defendant, but they did show that the shots came from defendant’s car, so a fair probability existed that evidence of a crime was in the defendant’s residence. And good faith execution of the warrant negated exclusion of evidence obtained under the warrant. On the omission of a required instruction, defendant affirmatively embraced the circuit court’s remedy, waiving any error, including plain error.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Dakkota Siders
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD85549

All exercise of authority except discharge prohibited
Circuit court authority over a criminal action ended with conviction unless the sentence included probation. The circuit court could extend its authority over probation past the period of probation only to adjudicate pre-expiration matters, and only if the circuit court “affirmatively manifested an intent to conduct a revocation hearing,” and made every reasonable effort to give the probationer notice and hold a hearing. When the probationer’s probation expired without the circuit court issuing notice of the hearing to the probationer, the circuit court lost authority. The Court of Appeals made permanent its preliminary writ of prohibition barring further action, except discharge of the probationer from probation, which the Court of Appeals ordered.
STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. JOANNA WRINKLE, Relator v THE HONORABLE DAVID COLE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38419

A 9mm was a firearm
On a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by being a felon in possession of a firearm, the elements included possession of a firearm. Statutes defined a firearm as any weapon “designed or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” Evidence that defendant was in possession of an exhibit that witnesses identified as a 9 millimeter pistol, and the circuit court’s examination of that exhibit, supported a finding that the pistol was a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment of guilty.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. STEVEN A. BENFORD, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38101

Orders of protection

No evidence supported order
The circuit court’s judgment granted the plaintiff’s petition for a permanent order of protection. The petition was not evidence. The record on appeal consisted solely of a transcript, which showed that no exhibits were before the circuit court. Plaintiff cited provisions related to domestic violence and stalking. The elements of domestic violence included membership in a family or household, of which no evidence appeared in the transcript. The elements of stalking included fear of physical harm, objective and subjective, of which the transcript contained no evidence. The judgment checked a box for sexual assault, but the petition and transcript were devoid of allegations and evidence of sexual assault. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the judgment.
(Overview summary)
A.L.O., Respondent, vs. G.L.N., Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112141

Post-conviction

Abandonment inquiry required
The date of sentencing determined the rule applicable to timely filing of an amended motion and a later amendment, in effect when mandate affirming the conviction issued, did not apply. The movant sought an extension of time to file an amended motion, but the circuit court never ruled on it, so no extension of time occurred, and the amended motion was late. Those facts raised a presumption of abandonment, which required the circuit court to independently inquire into whether post-conviction counsel had abandoned movant. Because the record showed no inquiry, and showed no exception to the requirement of timely filing, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action for an inquiry into abandonment.
(Overview summary)
Michael L. Smith, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111874