Case summaries for Sept. 26-Oct. 2, 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.
Civil | Criminal | Employment security | Juvenile | Mental health | Post conviction | Real estate | Workers' compensation
Civil
No good cause shown for failure to appear
To set aside the circuit court’s judgment, defendant had to show good cause. Good cause could include failing to show up for trial because of a miscommunication. Miscommunication was not the issue, because trial counsel did not show any communication about showing up for trial, so the failure to appear was reckless at best. The circuit court did not have to call defendant’s trial counsel before proceeding with the trial. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel established each element of a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The post-trial record showed that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees for defense raised frivolously and in bad faith.
(Overview summary)
Jeanette A. Vogt, Respondent, vs. Walls Real Estate Company, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113206
Criminal
Enhanced offense explained
Class D felony unlawful possession of a firearm was a class C felony if the state showed beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed a dangerous felony in Missouri or a foreign jurisdiction’s equivalent. Dangerous felonies included armed criminal action. California convictions for assault with a firearm, with enhanced punishment for using a firearm in the commission of a felony, were the equivalent of armed criminal action, so the class D felony became a class C felony. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JOHNNY CROWELS, Defendant-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38648
Speedy trial time calculated
A stop for violation of traffic laws was a reasonable seizure for as long as needed to investigate the traffic violation and make a disposition. The record supported a finding that the stop was taking no longer than that when law enforcement found contraband in defendant’s possession. The measurement of whether a trial was speedy started with the filing of the charging instrument and did not include defendant’s delays. The time was less than the eight-month period that constituted a presumptively unlawful delay.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ALONZO T. MACK, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38518
No lesser-included offense instructions required
“[I]f an offense is charged, [and] has degrees, that lower degree is by statute a lesser[-]included of a higher offense[.]” Instructions on lesser-included offenses were due on request when the record supported acquittal on the higher offense and conviction on the lower offense. On charges of first-degree statutory sodomy and second-degree child molestation, defendant respectively sought instructions for same offenses in the second degree and fourth degree. Each degree was based on the victims’ ages, as to which there was no dispute, so the circuit court did not err in denying those instructions.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Joshua S. Shackley
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87330
No opinion on credibility offered
Lay witnesses generally could not testify to anyone’s credibility. A witness testified on redirect as to why the witness did not seek alternative explanations for the victim’s account, but did not offer any opinion on anything, so no error occurred in admitting that testimony. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for the circuit court to enter judgment nunc pro tunc changing the dismissal of a charge to acquittal on that charge.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Rashede Harrigan
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87230
Sentence must be corrected
“The circuit court’s written judgment should reflect its oral pronouncement of sentence before the defendant.” The written judgment read both 999 years in one place and life in prison in another. The difference was material for parole purposes. The Missouri Court of Appeals remanded the action for a judgment nunc pro tunc reflecting the sentence of announced in open court.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Howard Kristopher Moots
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86942
Employment security
Appeal from dismissal could not reach merits of claim
The Missouri Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s decisions. Commission decisions to dismiss an action for untimely filing were subject to review of the dismissal, not the merits of the dismissed action. The commission dismissed appellant’s action for untimely filing, so appellant had to show error in the dismissal. The merits of the claim were not before the Missouri Court of Appeals because the commission never decided the merits of the claim. The record showed that appellant filed the action out of time, so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s decision to dismiss the action.
(Overview summary)
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113329
Hearsay objection forfeited by wrongdoing
The rule against hearsay barred testimony relating a declarant’s out-of-court statements, when offered for the proof of the matter stated, with a few exceptions. Exceptions included forfeiture by wrongdoing, which allowed testimony about the declarant’s out-of-court statements into evidence when the declarant was unavailable to testify in court to the matter because of defendant’s wrongdoing. Wrongdoing described defendant’s communication with the victim to influence the victim to disobey a subpoena and not testify. No threat was necessary for the communication to constitute wrongdoing; “manipulation, persuasion, and blame” were sufficient. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay. The Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review of a Confrontation Clause objection not made in circuit court and affirmed the convictions.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ORLANDO C. MOORE, SR., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38242
Juvenile
No grounds for division custody
“A parent’s right to raise [their] children is a fundamental constitutional right” so appellate courts “must be diligent to uphold the requirements of due process and protect the parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the parent-child relationship.” Appellant parent was not liable for the other parent’s conduct. The Department of Social Services Children’s Division could take custody of children from appellant parent for failure to provide proper care, custody, or support; but the circuit court found no domestic violence and no other criminal conduct that projected the parent’s future likelihood of engagement in the charged conduct. The circuit court’s judgment was, therefore, against the weight of the evidence. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the judgments.
In the Interest of: J.H.B. and J.A.B, minor children, GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent v. J.E.B., JR., Natural Father, Respondent-Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38913 and SD38914 Consolidated
Mental health
SVP confinement affirmed
The elements of an action to confine respondent under the Sexually Violent Predator Act included clear and convincing evidence that respondent was more likely than not to re-offend. That was exactly the opinion of the state’s expert as supported by the expert’s review of data, which constituted “sufficient, substantial, and overwhelming evidence [,]” especially considering that respondent ceased to offend “only because he was caught." An objection to the foundation for the expert’s testimony constituted a challenge to admissibility and not sufficiency; so when not raised in circuit court, that objection did not support a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
(Overview summary)
In the matter of the Care and Treatment of H.R., a/k/a H.J.R. vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87338
Post-conviction
Choice of witnesses okay
Relief for ineffective counsel required the movant to show that counsel’s performance was below professional standards and reasonably probably affected the outcome. That did not include impeachment witnesses and included only witnesses only who would have “unqualifiedly” helped the defense. That did not describe potential witnesses whose testimony would have been impeachment, mostly hearsay, and otherwise inadmissible.
(Overview summary)
Mose L. Martin, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112788
No successive motions
The judgment on appellant movant’s first motion denied relief on the merits, and did not dismiss the motion, so no designation of “with prejudice” was necessary to bar a successive motion. One rule barred successive motions and another did not, but the absence of a bar did not constitute authorization. And appellant movant did not contest the application of res judicata to dismiss the successive motion. An appeal from the dismissal of the successive motion could not include any challenge to findings made in the first motion. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment dismissing the successive motion.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. BRYAN C. KEATHLEY, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38615
No relief from sua sponte withdrawal of guilty plea
“[D]ouble jeopardy does not attach when a defendant consents to termination of the proceeding.” That included implicitly consenting to the circuit court’s sua sponte withdrawal of a first guilty plea by not objecting and accepting a second — and better — guilty plea. The remedy for a double jeopardy violation was vacatur of the conviction but movant sought only a credit for time served. The choice not to make an objection did not show that plea counsel was ineffective because the circuit court was so angry about a lapse in the state’s practice that an objection would have made no difference. And the circuit court’s sentencing was not limited by the plea agreement.
(Overview summary)
Jermaine D. Williams vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87599
No final judgment, no review
The Missouri Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review a final judgment on the motion. Final judgment on the motion occurred when the circuit court ruled on all claims as to all parties. Of the motion’s 16 claims, the circuit court ruled on 15. The judgment was not final, so the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Adam Woodworth vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87404
Direct appeal foreclosed motion
When “no error occurred, the issue cannot be relitigated in a post-conviction proceeding.” On direct appeal from movant’s conviction, the Missouri Court of Appeals held no error, plain or otherwise, occurred in the admission of a police officer’s testimony. That testimony identified movant from frequent presence about the police station. That ruling barred movant from arguing that trial counsel should have objected to the testimony, because it showed that an objection to the testimony would have been meritless, and trial counsel was never ineffective for failure to make a meritless objection to testimony.
(Overview summary)
Eddie B. Linzie vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87336
Real estate
Inverse condemnation was the sole remedy
Respondent city laid a sewer pipe beneath relator homeowner association’s land. The sewer ruptured and spilled sewage onto that land. The association brought an action in circuit court for damages under several theories and the city filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings was due for defendant when plaintiff’s petition failed to state a claim. The city then sought a writ of prohibition in the Missouri Court of Appeals. “[P]rohibition will lie if plaintiff’s petition does not state a viable theory of recovery, and relator was entitled to be dismissed from the suit as a matter of law.” The only remedy against an entity having the power of eminent domain was an action for inverse condemnation. The Missouri Court of Appeals made permanent its preliminary writ of prohibition to bar the circuit court from doing anything but granting either the city’s motion or any leave sought to amend the association’s petition.
STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. CITY OF OSAGE BEACH, Relator v. THE HONORABLE AARON G. KOEPPEN, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38855
Workers’ compensation
No backing out of settlement
Employer’s pleadings and ample evidence showed that claimant was employer’s employee. Circuit court orders nunc pro tunc could correct decisions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, not on the merits of decisions, but only to reflect what actually happened by correcting clerical errors. Clerical errors could be presumed from an examination of the record. The record recited employer’s name uniformly except in one instance, the settlement, so substantial evidence supported the correction of the settlement. And repudiation of the settlement based on the clerical error might “expose a party to further liability and its attorneys to potential disciplinary consequences.”
(Overview summary)
David Kell, Respondent, vs. Walker Recycling Company, LLC, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113338