Case summaries for Oct. 4-10, 2024

Criminal | Evidence | Post-conviction

Criminal 

Defendant did not sufficiently support self-defense at trial 
On a charge of unlawful use of a weapon, the defendant had the burden of raising the issue of self-defense and supporting that argument with “substantial” evidence. Evidence that the victim was taller than the defendant, and that the victim asked the defendant to leave while stepping toward the defendant, did not meet that standard. Moreover, “the term ‘self-defense’ was never uttered during the trial.” The defendant moved for acquittal because the state did not disprove self-defense. The circuit court did not err in denying that motion. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JOHN DAVID FLEENOR, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38241

Taser was a dangerous instrument 
The elements of class A felony assault in the first degree included a knowing, substantial step toward a substantial risk of death or protracted loss or impairment of the body. The defendant’s conduct raised a presumption that the defendant intended the natural and probable consequences. The state showed that a taser can be lethal, especially when used without training, so a jury could find that a taser was a dangerous instrument. The defendant used the taser to cause the victim to lose control of the victim’s upper body in the course of attempting to escape custody. The victim was a corrections employee. The circuit court did not err in convicting the defendant of first-degree assault on a special victim and armed criminal action. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. MICHAEL RAY DURISON, Defendant-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38257

Evidence 

Expert relied on hearsay 
Preserving an objection to the denial of a motion in limine required a timely objection and an identical objection post-trial. The spoliation doctrine allowed an adverse inference of bad faith when a party destroyed relevant records and preserving an objection to an adverse inference instruction required a timely objection. Statute provided that expert witnesses were never barred from reliance on hearsay in forming an opinion. And the plaintiffs’ expert did not rely on the facts in police reports, only in those reports’ existence, in forming an opinion on whether the defendants were negligent. Whether the plaintiffs were still in business was irrelevant to the statutory foundation for admitting the expert’s testimony on professional standards. The circuit court did not err when instructing the jury to examine the conduct of the defendant business entity, so designating that the defendant’s former owner as the statutory trustee without a definition was not only unnecessary but would have confused the jury. Courts do not use a mathematical formula to calculate punitive damages, the punitive damages award was similar to a criminal penalty, and had support in defendants’ “reprehensible” conduct – turning a blind eye to an employee’s criminal conduct — so the circuit court did not err in denying a motion to reduce that award. 
(Overview summary)
K.B., et al., Respondents, v. Oasis Foot Spa and Massage, LLC, and Zhengzhao Lu, Appellants. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112202

Post-conviction 

Impeachment evidence would not have made a difference 
On a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant had to show that the counsel’s substandard performance prejudiced the movant in the underlying criminal trial. In the underlying criminal trial, the elements of the charges included deliberation. The movant alleged that the trial counsel could have negated that element with evidence that a mental disease or defect that caused the movant to reflexively shoot victim, a police officer who opened the movant’s car door. But that evidence constituted vague impeachment evidence only that did not present a reasonable probability of a different outcome against other overwhelming evidence of guilt. 
(Overview summary)
Trenton E. Forster, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112008

No expert found 
On a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant had to show prejudice from counsel’s inadequate performance. Showing inadequate performance in failing to secure an expert required showing that an expert was available. The record showed that the trial counsel tried to, but could not, find an expert to support the movant’s theory of serotonin or medication intoxication as the cause of “numerous crimes arising out of sexual assaults of a minor.” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief. 
CHESTER WILLIAM FEWINS, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38256