Case summaries for Sept. 19-25, 2025

Appellate | Criminal | Evidence| Juvenile | Workers' compensation

Appellate

Briefing deficiencies required dismissal
The prescribed format for briefs protected the courts’ neutrality. In the appellants’ amended brief, the statement of facts included argument and failed to “concisely detail the basic factual background necessary to resolve their claims on appeal.” The points relied on failed to follow the prescribed template or include the template’s elements, or combined matters in multifarious points. Preservation statements and an appendix were absent. The argument failed to apply law to the facts or quoted language not found in the cited authorities. The deficiencies impeded appellate review, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
David Mecey and Robin Mecey, Appellants, v. Harps Food Stores, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113183

Briefing deficiencies impeded appellate review
Appellate courts preferred resolution on the merits but had to maintain neutrality. Neutrality was in danger when an appellate brief so departed from the governing rules that an appellate court had to figure out the arguments for itself. Appellant’s statement of facts included argument with only three citations to the record and omitted the transcript. Appellant’s points relied on failed to identify the ruling challenged and any facts supporting relief from that ruling. Appellant’s argument omitted the standard of review and failed to apply the law to the facts. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Nicole E. Bazuaye vs. Lawrence Bazuaye
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87755

Criminal

Irremediable prejudice was necessary to support mistrial
Defendant’s evidence could “open the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence from the state. The circuit court cautioned the defense about suggesting a motive for the victim to fabricate allegations. The state countered on re-direct, the circuit court barred a response, and the jury acquitted defendant on five of six counts. Those events did not show an implication of prior bad acts so prejudicial as to be irremediable and require a mistrial. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Kevin P. Coplin, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112914

No plain error review for strategic errors
A motion in limine did not preserve an issue for appeal; only an objection at trial could do that. And the objection at trial had to match the argument for exclusion on appeal. A statement of “no objection” waived even plain error review because plain error review was a remedy for inadvertence and not for strategic errors. Plain error review required appellant to describe an error that was obvious and outcome-determinative. The elements of persistent offender status were findings of guilt on more than one felony “committed at different times.”  No plain error occurred when the circuit court instead of a jury made the finding of persistent offender status because that status was admitted. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shyheim El-Mumin, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112755

Conviction affirmed for endangering the welfare of a child
Any inference that supported the elements of the charged offense constituted sufficient evidence of guilt, other possible inferences notwithstanding, and false statements showed consciousness of guilt. On a charge of felony first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, evidence that defendant improperly applied the restraints of a car seat supported a finding of guilty. Those facts, and leaving the victim unsupervised, satisfied the element of recklessness for first-degree involuntary manslaughter. The circuit court submitted the approved instruction for endangering the welfare of a child resulting in death. That instruction departed from the statutory language by substituting “resulted in” victim’s death with “caused” victim’s death. The two terms meant the same thing, so no plain error occurred in the use of that instruction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DEBORAH K. LUNDSTROM, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38528

Evidence

Foundation for social media posts discussed
Erroneous evidentiary rulings required reversal only if outcome-determinative. Online and social media messages were subject to the same foundation of authenticity as other writings: some evidence that the document is what it purports to be. The state offered exhibits from defendant’s online account to negate defendant’s self-defense theory. Testimony about the source account, defendant’s exclusive access to it, and the time of the posts established the foundation for admissibility; other testimony went only to the weight of the evidence, so no error occurred. Even if error occurred, the exhibits were not outcome determinative.  The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Janaya Neither, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112866

Sufficiency distinguished from admissibility
A warrant application cited informants’ recent and detailed first-hand observations corroborated by police observations, so no plain error occurred when the circuit court admitted the resulting evidence into the record. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued that the substance found and the substance tested were not the same substance. But that argument was really an objection to the chain of custody, to which appellant made no objection. Circumstantial evidence linked the substance to paraphernalia in appellant’s actual and constructive possession, supporting appellant’s convictions. Appellant had the right to trial counsel or to defend without counsel, but not both, and no right “to play a ‘cat and mouse’ game with” the matter. Appellant repeatedly waived trial counsel and did not ask for counsel to draft a post-trial motion, so no denial of counsel occurred.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38593

Juvenile

Transfer was moot
Appellate courts did not rule on matters as to which a ruling offered no relief. Appellant sought a ruling on which one of two juvenile division orders was effective to certify appellant as an adult and transfer appellant to circuit court for prosecution under the criminal laws. Appellant agreed that at least one such order was effective, so which one it was did not matter. No exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot.  
(Overview summary)
In the interest of: A.J.K.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112633 

Workers' compensation

No disability from secondary injury
The Second Injury Fund was liable for benefits when an earlier injury and a later injury combined to render claimants permanently and totally disabled. If the later injury alone caused permanent and total disability, on appellate review of claims, absent fraud, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s findings of fact were conclusive when supported by substantial and competent evidence. Substantial and competent evidence supported a finding that an earlier injury had already rendered claimant permanently and totally disabled because the commission resolved conflicting testimony against the claimant on that matter.
(Overview summary)
Anthony Easley, Appellant, v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED113451

No re-weighing of evidence in court
In workers’ compensation claims, claimants had the burden of proof. The decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission had to stand on substantial and competent evidence, which was not the case when the decision was against the weight of the evidence. The weight of the evidence meant the quality of the evidence, which the commission decided and appellate courts did not. The commission expressly found the claimant not credible, especially considering the employer’s surveillance videos. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ROBERT BYERS, Appellant v. NEW PRIME, INC., Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38916